On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 06:56:30PM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 01:36:32PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: > > On 16 July 2011 12:50, Aleksey Lim <alsr...@activitycentral.org> wrote: > > > All of them on bugs.sl.o, since I'm not maintaing collab code and it was > > > rewritten in 0.9x > > > (and never worked fine since then for me), plus jabber.sl.o has bunch of > > > noise trafic, > > > I, w/ tweaking prosody patch, patched client code as well. ie, final > > > implementaion might be too different. thats why these patches are on > > > bugs.sl.o. > > > > I'd suggest that you submit them as patches to the mailing list - > > thats the current community norm, even if you aren't a maintainer, and > > will form the discussions that would help turn them into a final > > implementation. > > You got me wrong, dunno for others but I'm prefering working in two > modes, patching stable code (and emailing to sugar-devel@) and devepping > new features (and do not email every commit to ML). > > In my mind new collab code was never stable but unfortunately > committed to the trunk. In that case I was very surprised when tried recent > 0.92, that OLPC is going release these days, and found bunch of critical > issues > (and got assumption that if olpc is ok w/ that, they patched ejabberd, > which is abs. wrong way for me). > > Personally, if I would glucose maintainer (but I'm not), I will fallback to PS > and form new collab code as a feature w/ people who will work in > development mode (ie, not sending every commit to ML) and make it stable > (being assured by tests). Then, it might replace PS.
Besides, the one of accept criterias needs to be hight level client API/behaviour description. It should simplify support on both, client and server sides. The exact issue w/ new code is that it behaves differently to PS. > Thats my personal vision on new collab feature. To move forward, and have it > in 0.92 if people want, we need not maintainers (and every commit > reviewers/accepters on ML) but collab developers who will work in > development mode to revisit and understand(since we don't have original > feature developer) the entirely implementation. > > > > > Thanks for your work. > > Daniel > > > > -- > Aleksey -- Aleksey _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel