[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah
From: |
Léo Le Bouter |
Subject: |
Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Mar 2021 04:08:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.2 |
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 21:55 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I'm sorry if that happened. It was not my intent. Can you show me
> what
> I wrote that misrepresents your position?
I don't have the energy now I feel already bad enough this discussion
even happened, in a way that even Ludo, the creator of the GNU Guix
project, ended up saying that they think I don't understand the review
process. I think I do understand it and I wonder why anyone made me a
GNU Guix committer if they think any other way.
> I answered essentially the same question in my last message, so I'm
> not
> sure why you're asking again. We've been successfully accepting
> contributions from non-committers for years.
I think one has to realize that being a non-committer is a really
frustrating experience even if your work is of good quality and that
frustrating experience is demotivating and makes people give up. And
having a branch and special relationship with a GNU Guix committer
(like what we're doing with Raghav) is helpful to capture Raghav's
motivation and energy in a way they do not get frustrated and give up.
> Yes, of course. To be clear: you are well within your *rights* to do
> so, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
>
> My main concerns are:
>
> (1) The primary branch for GNOME 40 work should be on Savannah, and
> that's where we should encourage Guix developers to do this work.
> No Guix developer should be asked to work on an external site in
> order to contribute to the GNOME 40 effort.
That's where it felt it was the best place to collaborate for me and
Raghav (non-committer).
>
> (2) Any work that you and Raghav do on an external site should be
> _regularly_ merged into Savannah, in manageable pieces, after
> being
> reviewed of course. If you do this, my concerns over review
> quality
> would be addressed.
We already seek to do this.
>
> (3) If changes are made on the 'wip' branch on Savannah that conflict
> with your preliminary work on an external site, it would be your
> responsibility to rebase your work as needed, just as anyone
> proposing a patch would be expected to do. That should be an
> incentive to submit your work to Savannah early and often.
If changes were to be made in a way that rebasing work and solving
conflicts becomes too much trouble we will probably give up (Raghav
probably) and there wont be any GNOME 40 upgrade.
> Would this be acceptable to you?
I don't even know anymore.
> Regards,
> Mark
Léo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: GNOME 40, (continued)
- Re: GNOME 40, Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/28
- Re: GNOME 40, Christopher Baines, 2021/03/29
- GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/29
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/29
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), zimoun, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Mark H Weaver, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah,
Léo Le Bouter <=
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40), Christopher Baines, 2021/03/30
- Re: GNOME 40, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/29
- Re: GNOME 40, 宋文武, 2021/03/31
Re: GNOME 40, Raghav Gururajan, 2021/03/29