I couldn't agree more that code review is a good practice.
(I hope it was absolutely clear that I didn't expect you to deny merge
requests, it was a theoretical example)
On Sunday, 29 December 2013, Luiz Irber wrote:
Hello, sorry for causing all this problem =]
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:35
Hello, sorry for causing all this problem =]
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 December 2013 23:36, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
alan...@hotmail.comwrote:
No. I only aswer this email (see below).
The mantainer is not Unresponsive, only takes more
+1 from me as well.
For the record: I drafted the current policy a couple of years ago in
the attempt to give activity developers a clearly documented process
that they can just follow without getting stuck into a long policy
discussion.
As Daniel noted, the current process seems a bit too
Hi Aleksey,
I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
It is possible at least add Alan to the project as owner, without remove
Luiz?
Gonzalo
On
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
Hi Aleksey,
I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
then in this case, is not a disrespect to the maintainer.
It is possible at least
IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
even after Alan uploads new ones.)
regards.
-walter
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM,
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be available
even after Alan uploads
One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
having multiple versions and so,
is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
use.
Gonzalo
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:02:42AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
Hi Aleksey,
I agree with you, but Alan have tried to communicate with Luiz for a month,
and the activity didn't had any development for 4 years,
then in
I agree. I think cloning is a good approach for developers (git), and I
wish gitorious was designed more like github in that respect.
Though I think on ASLO we should have editorial control and decide who gets
to publish code under a certain name because that's what works best for
users and, in
On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on ASLO. git is
set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint ownership
on ASLO. (The
By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers
Any reason we are not following it?
On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey
(Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we should move
it to developer.sugarlabs.org).
On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy already.
It is current and we should be following it, IMHO.
-walter
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
(Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we should move it
to developer.sugarlabs.org).
On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez
+1
On Tuesday, 24 December 2013, Walter Bender wrote:
It is current and we should be following it, IMHO.
-walter
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez
dwnarv...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
(Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we should
move it
to
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:22:14PM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
having multiple versions and so,
is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
use.
In my ming, you are messing here several points:
(1)
On Tuesday, 24 December 2013, Aleksey Lim wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:22:14PM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
One problem with this idea of multiple developers cloning,
having multiple versions and so,
is than we transfer to the user the complexity of deal with what activity
use.
In
...@sugarlabs.org
To: gonz...@laptop.org
CC: alan...@hotmail.com; sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org; ber...@codewiz.org;
walter.ben...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:22:14PM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
One problem with this idea of multiple
On 24 December 2013 23:08, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn alan...@hotmail.comwrote
Hi,
I thought that request access to a repository was simpler task.
In general, we have a policy for it, I think until there is consensus to
change it we should just follow it
You didn't paste your answer or am I not finding it? Did you send a pull
request as suggested? Having seen this email, I wouldn't say the maintainer
is unresponsive.
No. I only aswer this email (see below). The mantainer is not Unresponsive,
only takes more of 1 month to asnwer, that what
On 24 December 2013 23:36, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn alan...@hotmail.comwrote:
No. I only aswer this email (see below).
The mantainer is not Unresponsive, only takes more of 1 month to asnwer,
that what is?
slow modem connection user? :-)
Well, to start with give him more of a chance :) He
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:11:29AM -0200, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
Bernie, Aleksey,
Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
can you give him access to the git repository?
Thanks
Hi,
I took a timeout to wait for original author's response...
Aleksey, could you please do this? If you're busy, I'll do it over the
week-end.
On 12/19/13 05:11, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
Bernie, Aleksey,
Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
can you give him access to the git repository?
Thanks
Bernie, Aleksey,
Alan proposed work in this activity a month ago.
The owner was notified, but didn't replied,
can you give him access to the git repository?
Thanks
Gonzalo
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
alan...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I want to continue working
Hi,
I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.Now, I have some
changes:
-add translations for other languages-add compatibility with new sugar
versions-replace OLPCGames library for SugarGames
Wich is the way to get permissions to original GIT:
Nice!
If you don't have reply, can ask bernie or alsroot help.
If not, can clone it
Gonzalo
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
alan...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I want to continue working with this game. It's interesting.
Now, I have some changes:
-add translations
...@hotmail.com
CC: sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game
Nice!If you don't have reply, can ask bernie or alsroot help.If not, can clone
it
Gonzalo
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn alan...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I want to continue working
@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game
Nice!
If you don't have reply, can ask bernie or alsroot help.
If not, can clone it
Gonzalo
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
alan...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I want to continue working with this game
28 matches
Mail list logo
