Is LicenseFinder still being actively mainted?

[Sebastian Schuberth]

Hi,

looking at the GitHub page there has not been any activity for about 2 months now, pull requests start to pile up, and more importantly the test fail for the master branch. Is LicenseFinder still being actively developed by Pivotal?

Regards,
Sebastian

[Mike Dalessio]

Yes, it's being maintained, but we could obviously use help if you're interested in getting involved.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "license-finder" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to license-finder+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Sebastian Schuberth]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Mike Dalessio <mike.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, it's being maintained, but we could obviously use help if you're
> interested in getting involved.

Well, I tried to, but my PRs are not being reviewed / merged in a
timely fashion. Also, prior to accepting help, you should probably get
your baseline right so that test pass again on master. Otherwise PRs
will get bogus test failures, which is highly discouraging for anyone
willing to contribute, IMO.

--
Sebastian Schuberth

[Mike Dalessio]

Sebastian, I'm asking if you'd like to get involved as a committer (I really appreciate your contributions!).

[Sebastian Schuberth]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Mike Dalessio <mdal...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Sebastian, I'm asking if you'd like to get involved as a committer (I really
> appreciate your contributions!).

I appreciate the offer, but I'm not sure how that would speed up
things. Even as a contributor I'd strongly prefer to go through a (at
least four-eyes) peer-review process of my own changes, i.e. I would
not push any unreviewed changes to master even if I could. That said,
the workflow would basically be the same than me filing PRs as an
"outsider".

Except maybe that as a contributor I could merge my own PRs if they
passed the tests and there was no negative feedback within a
reasonable amount of time. Is that it what you were thinking about?

--
Sebastian Schuberth

[Mike Dalessio]

Thanks for considering it, anyway.

I'll try to set aside some time tonight to get through the many pull requests. Any in particular that are urgent you'd like me to start with?

[Sebastian Schuberth]

Well, like I mentioned earlier, IMO the top priority should be to make the tests in master pass again. Otherwise you are unable to see whether an individual PR breaks a test or not. Then PRs should be rebased onto the new master to trigger verifying them again.

If you don't have the time for this I can offer looking into why tests currently are broken and fix this single issue directly in master if you make me a contributor. But afterwards I'd like to revert to peer-reviewing all changes again.

Sebastian Schuberth

[Sebastian Schuberth]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:10:17 PM UTC+2, mdalessio wrote:

Sebastian, I'm asking if you'd like to get involved as a committer (I really appreciate your contributions!).

Hi Mike,

does your offer still hold? I still don't want to merge anything in without a review, but I figure we can do a review internally in our company / I can ask a colleague of mine for a review and to comment on the PR, and if there are no issues, I could merge even if you don't have the time to. Does that sound feasible?

Regards,
Sebastian

[Mike Dalessio]

Hi,

There are a few Pivotal developers who are actively working on LF at the moment. I'd like to encourage you all to work together through PRs.

[Sebastian Schuberth]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Mike Dalessio <mike.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a few Pivotal developers who are actively working on LF at the
> moment. I'd like to encourage you all to work together through PRs.

So, what's the average time we can expect PR being looked at? I
haven't seen any feedback on mine for about a month now.

--
Sebastian Schuberth

[Mike Dalessio]

I'm sorry, I asked you on Sept 29 which PRs you thought were important to look at and you didn't really provide an answer.

I encourage you to interact with the team by updating the PRs that you think are urgent or important.

It feels like we're not communicating very well, and for that I apologize.

[Sebastian Schuberth]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Mike Dalessio <mike.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, I asked you on Sept 29 which PRs you thought were important to
> look at and you didn't really provide an answer.

I didn't answer because back then the question did not really make
sense to me as the tests in master were broken. Without tests passing
in master you don't know which PRs would pass, making a prioritization
hard as you cannot be sure about a PR's maturity. Also, while I
appreciate you asking for my opinion, I believe the decision which PRs
to prioritize should be done by the maintainers, not by contributors.
That said, I'd personally look at those PRs first that

- have no merge conflicts,
- have passing tests,
- are reasonably sized,
- have a clear scope and value (like addressing a known issue),
- have a responsive author to address any remaining issues.

But then again, with only 7 open PRs, all rather small, I do not see
the need for prioritization at all.

In any case, please have a look at
https://github.com/pivotal/LicenseFinder/pull/254 :-)

--
Sebastian Schuberth

[Kim Dykeman]

Hi Sebastian,

There is a team that's been picking a way at PRs for License Finder part time - low hanging fruit has admittedly come first.  There's a couple of things I'd like to get more clarity around from a PM perspective on this particular PR.  I'll add some questions/thoughts to the PR discussion tomorrow.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "license-finder" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to license-finde...@googlegroups.com.