On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 15:17 +1000, James Cameron wrote: > Activities too? I've been tracking #1571 for months now, and if posting > the patch here will work, I'm all for it. ;-)
If you were just asking whether it's ok to post patches for activities here, sure: we have no separate mailing list for activities (*). If, instead, you were proposing to relax the rules for approving patches to activities, I think we should discuss this carefully. Many activities would probably be better off with their only maintainer reviewing and approving each patch personally. What about the fructose activities? What about orphaned activities? The question of how to handle the case of an unresponsive maintainer came up on #sugar last week: shall we define a formal procedure for taking over projects in ASLO and Gitorious? This is how Fedora handles it: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy#What_to_do_if_a_Maintainer_is_absent If it seems reasonable, we could adopt the very same procedure for ASLO and Gitorious, of course with some obvious changes: s/bugzilla/trac/, s/FESco/SLOBs/, s/CVS/Gitorious or ASLO/. (*) this was a deliberate choice: this way, core developers would get a sense of what the infrastructure needs of activities really are, while activity writers would learn about Sugar internals and eventually become core developers. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
