Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Angus, that seems like a perfect plan to me. I am going to follow this
| very logic from now on.
But if you continue to commit pathces that does several things at
once, you have to prepare for battle.
(This is part of the responsibility part of the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Angus, that seems like a perfect plan to me. I am going to follow this
| very logic from now on.
But if you continue to commit pathces that does several things at
once, you have to prepare for battle.
(This is part of the
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that
| you cannot understand it?
And reiterations cannot be tolerated?
| And... it is better to send a patch (a patch with one part of a
| cleanup, one logical change etc.) for review
Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that
| you cannot understand it?
And reiterations cannot be tolerated?
LOL! Gentlemen, you're a blind date that has got off on the wrong
Angus Leeming wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that
| you cannot understand it?
And reiterations cannot be tolerated?
LOL! Gentlemen, you're a blind date that
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Angus, that seems like a perfect plan to me. I am going to follow this
| very logic from now on.
But if you continue to commit pathces that does several things at
once, you have to prepare for battle.
(This is part of the responsibility part of the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Angus, that seems like a perfect plan to me. I am going to follow this
| very logic from now on.
But if you continue to commit pathces that does several things at
once, you have to prepare for battle.
(This is part of
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that
| you cannot understand it?
And reiterations cannot be tolerated?
| > And... it is better to send a patch (a patch with one part of a
| > cleanup, one logical change etc.) for
Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that
> | you cannot understand it?
> And reiterations cannot be tolerated?
LOL! Gentlemen, you're a blind date that has got off on
Angus Leeming wrote:
Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Did you read what I wrote Lars? Is it my English that is so bad that
| you cannot understand it?
And reiterations cannot be tolerated?
LOL! Gentlemen, you're a blind date
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:01:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
Now that Lars has installed Trac, commit mails sent out automatically
by lyx-cvs all have hyperlinks to the changes.
Which is, on a side-note, useless for people that are not connected to
the net most of the time (i.e. 'me').
Could
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:01:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
| Now that Lars has installed Trac, commit mails sent out automatically
| by lyx-cvs all have hyperlinks to the changes.
|
| Which is, on a side-note, useless for people that are not
Angus Leeming wrote:
Asger Ottar Alstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's much better to make 10 commits during 3 hours. Then each diff is
manageable in a review, and it is technically easier to revert.
Lars has a point that it can improve your workflow when you need to
think small,
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:01:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Now that Lars has installed Trac, commit mails sent out automatically
> by lyx-cvs all have hyperlinks to the changes.
Which is, on a side-note, useless for people that are not connected to
the net most of the time (i.e. 'me').
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:01:30PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
| > Now that Lars has installed Trac, commit mails sent out automatically
| > by lyx-cvs all have hyperlinks to the changes.
|
| Which is, on a side-note, useless for people that are not
Angus Leeming wrote:
Asger Ottar Alstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's much better to make 10 commits during 3 hours. Then each diff is
manageable in a review, and it is technically easier to revert.
Lars has a point that it can improve your workflow when you need to
think small,
I propose that LyX adopts a direct-commit policy for developers who have
demonstrated that they know the rules AND are competent, AND can commit
time to work on LyX.
Each commit results in a diff sent to the list for post-festum review
mainly as a sanity check and such that Lars and others
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 10:45:11AM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
The main risks are:
- There will be a known problem which the developer does not have time
to fix until a week or two later. Then something happens, and it never
gets done
This is still a risk even with review. Review
John Levon wrote:
No review is done
This is better than code does not get committed, given that the
developer is competent.
3) Commit early and often.
But as I understand it, this is the bone of contention anyway. If they
need to do this, it is not a huge burden to get patch review,
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
John Levon wrote:
No review is done
This is better than code does not get committed, given that the
developer is competent.
There really is no developer I've ever met who doesn't need review, and
I work with some very
Asger Ottar Alstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I propose that LyX adopts a direct-commit policy for developers who
| have demonstrated that they know the rules AND are competent, AND can
| commit time to work on LyX.
Knowing the rules are not enough. You must at least try to follow them
as
Asger Ottar Alstrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's much better to make 10 commits during 3 hours. Then each diff is
manageable in a review, and it is technically easier to revert.
Lars has a point that it can improve your workflow when you need to
think small, self-contained steps. But
On 7/4/06, John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
John Levon wrote:
No review is done
This is better than code does not get committed, given that the
developer is competent.
There really is no developer I've ever met who
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:36:05PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(But if you then also add - and change emit to emitSignal then
that is not the case anymore.)
Abdelrazak If you really think what you are saying here then you
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| I am a scientific who happens to like C++ development (and who think
| he is quite good at it ;-)). I am not a professional in the software
| business and don't to be. I guess most LyX developers are the same as
| me,
I propose that LyX adopts a direct-commit policy for developers who have
demonstrated that they know the rules AND are competent, AND can commit
time to work on LyX.
Each commit results in a diff sent to the list for post-festum review
mainly as a sanity check and such that Lars and others
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 10:45:11AM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
> The main risks are:
>
> - There will be a known problem which the developer does not have time
> to fix until a week or two later. Then something happens, and it never
> gets done
This is still a risk even with review.
John Levon wrote:
> No review is done
This is better than code does not get committed, given that the
developer is competent.
> > 3) Commit early and often.
But as I understand it, this is the bone of contention anyway. If they
need to do this, it is not a huge burden to get patch review,
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> > No review is done
>
> This is better than code does not get committed, given that the
> developer is competent.
There really is no developer I've ever met who doesn't need review, and
I work with some
Asger Ottar Alstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I propose that LyX adopts a direct-commit policy for developers who
| have demonstrated that they know the rules AND are competent, AND can
| commit time to work on LyX.
Knowing the rules are not enough. You must at least try to follow them
as
Asger Ottar Alstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's much better to make 10 commits during 3 hours. Then each diff is
> manageable in a review, and it is technically easier to revert.
>
> Lars has a point that it can improve your workflow when you need to
> think small, self-contained steps.
On 7/4/06, John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Asger Ottar Alstrup wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> > No review is done
>
> This is better than code does not get committed, given that the
> developer is competent.
There really is no developer I've ever
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 02:36:05PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> (But if you then also add -> "and change emit to emitSignal" then
> >> that is not the case anymore.)
>
> Abdelrazak> If you really think what you
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I am a scientific who happens to like C++ development (and who think
> | he is quite good at it ;-)). I am not a professional in the software
> | business and don't to be. I guess most LyX developers are the same as
> | me,
Lars, all,
I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump to
the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
Basically, I would like the decision process to be smoothed and based on
merit. There are some advantages of the one-patch/one-feature approach
but there
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars, all,
|
| I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump
| to the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
|
| Basically, I would like the decision process to be smoothed and based
| on merit. There are some
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars, all,
|
| I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump
| to the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
|
| Basically, I would like the decision process to be smoothed and based
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 12:46:07PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars, all,
|
| I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump
| to the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
|
[...]
| - The SVN log is
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(But if you then also add - and change emit to emitSignal then
that is not the case anymore.)
Abdelrazak If you really think what you are saying here then you
Abdelrazak should have said it before. For me this emit problem was
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | - With patch oriented review style, it is easier to review a patch
| | that does only one thing. We are talking here about deep review, here,
| | not only code sanity review.
| I look at almost all patches, sure what I most often point at is
|
Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lets not turn lyx management into a bureaucrazy where rules must be
| followed mostly for their own sake. You have good arguments
| for one patch - one feature in general, but please check
| that they really apply to _this_ particular case before
On Monday 03 July 2006 14:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
But when I say something you take everything as gospel?
Actually it is easy for someone who does not know you personally.
For those who don't know Lars in this list, Lars is a very reasonable person
with a clear set of principles.
Hello,
I'm writing to you from the perspective of a LyX user.
This notion of a meritocracy jeopardizes LyX development.
The fact of the matter is that not all of the developers
are equal in ability. The project needs a director to
set a common denominator standard. Most can't know as much
Jose' Matos wrote:
For those who don't know Lars in this list, Lars is a very reasonable person
with a clear set of principles. The problem is that email is not the best
channel to transmit this. There is always loss of information in the
transmission. :-(
A couple of years ago, I used a
Lars, all,
I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump to
the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
Basically, I would like the decision process to be smoothed and based on
merit. There are some advantages of the one-patch/one-feature approach
but there
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars, all,
|
| I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump
| to the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
|
| Basically, I would like the decision process to be smoothed and based
| on merit. There are some
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars, all,
|
| I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump
| to the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
|
| Basically, I would like the decision process to be smoothed and based
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 12:46:07PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars, all,
> |
> | I would like to propose a way forward for new development. Just jump
> | to the conclusion if this mail seems too long to read :-)
> |
[...]
> | - The
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (But if you then also add -> "and change emit to emitSignal" then
>> that is not the case anymore.)
Abdelrazak> If you really think what you are saying here then you
Abdelrazak> should have said it before. For me this "emit"
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | - With patch oriented review style, it is easier to review a patch
| > | that does only one thing. We are talking here about deep review, here,
| > | not only code sanity review.
| > I look at almost all patches, sure what I most often point at
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lets not turn lyx management into a bureaucrazy where rules must be
| followed mostly for their own sake. You have good arguments
| for "one patch - one feature" in general, but please check
| that they really apply to _this_ particular case before
On Monday 03 July 2006 14:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> But when I say something you take everything as gospel?
Actually it is easy for someone who does not know you personally.
For those who don't know Lars in this list, Lars is a very reasonable person
with a clear set of principles.
Hello,
I'm writing to you from the perspective of a LyX user.
This notion of a meritocracy jeopardizes LyX development.
The fact of the matter is that not all of the developers
are equal in ability. The project needs a director to
set a common denominator standard. Most can't know as much
Jose' Matos wrote:
For those who don't know Lars in this list, Lars is a very reasonable person
with a clear set of principles. The problem is that email is not the best
channel to transmit this. There is always loss of information in the
transmission. :-(
A couple of years ago, I used a
54 matches
Mail list logo
