[Nitro] Patch management
rainhead at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 15:23:56 EST 2006
Thanks for your message. I haven't had trouble with my patches
disappear, although sometimes it's taken a while to get a response or
see them committed, and I've wondered if they did disappear.
Regardless, I think publishing patches and opening them up to general
discussion is a very good idea. If patches are sent to the list,
given the wonderful distributed nature of darcs, other users could
apply e.g. an emergency patch without waiting for it to be approved
Transparency and bookkeeping are also very important, and something
that Nitro could use a good bit more of. I don't feel like it's a
trust issue so much as an incomplete transition from being a private
project to a public one.
Publishing patches is one step in the right direction; a real bug
tracker a la trac is another one. We don't have the resources to
build our own tracker. We need one yesterday. If this would happen
faster with some help from a sysadmin, that is my area of expertise.
There are many documents besides traditional documentation that we
desperately need in order to collaborate on documentation.
Principally, these are: a development road map, a style guide, and a
"map" of nitro's functions. George, you're in the best position to
write these documents. If you need help editing, or if it would be
helpful to be supplied with questions to guide your writing, let me/
My $0.03 (inflation, donchya know)
On Jan 2, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Aleksi Niemela wrote:
> I've heard there might be patches that are not accepted into Glycerin.
> I'd like to see few things happen:
> 1) In case George has looked at patches but doesn't accept for
> reason (and that's his right) it would be nice if the reasons are made
> explicit. If some more work is needed to get the patch accepted,
> that would be most important. If there're ideological or other reasons
> making those public would provide sense of direction for the rest
> of devs.
> I propose all Patch talk is kept in this same Nitro mailing list but
> message subjects would be prefixed with "PATCH:". In time, I hope, the
> patch traffic will grow to annoying level and dedicated mailing list
> should be spawned.
> I hope no message containing a Patch won't go unanswered. Simple
> "committed" or "won't make into glue per
> http://www.nitrohq.com/view/ArchitecturalGuidelines" shouldn't be too
> much. Discussions might emerge for accepted and not-accepted patches.
> 2) All the patches would be public. Those shouldn't be sent only to
> George but for example to aforementioned public mailing list or they
> could be placed into separate directory at nitrohq for rest of Devs to
> fetch and work upon.
> One could go forward with public patches and more maintainers might
> up naturally. In case George is busy sometime another maintainer could
> prepare glycerin "upgrade" bundle by accepting dozens of patches and
> testing those. George would then have an easy job to put that one
> bundle in official glycerin.
> I guess this kind "parallel development" is one of the great ideas
> should enable.
> I have no standing patches, I guess, so these points don't touch me
> personally, but I could imagine any dev could get frustrated if
> patches feels like throwing them into (mostly friendly) black hole.
> - Aleksi
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2410 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/nitro-general/attachments/20060102/d26ff0b7/attachment.bin
More information about the Nitro-general