Changes in development process
Felipe Contreras
Discussing with Devid it became clear we needed some clarification
about how to proceed with the development.
For various reasons I'm a strong advocate of sending patches through
the mailing list, however, some people find that annoying. So for the
people following this mailing list I ask this question: Do we want
patches through this mailing list? If the answer is no, then I propose
creating another mailing list for development.
In order to get a feeling of how I hope future patches should go I've
sent my latest updates as I expect contributors to do so. Keep in mind
that most probably the flow of patches will be less than that.
Also, we are approaching the 0.1 release which means we should
concentrate on stability and the development process should be
adjusted accordingly. The next rc (0.1.0-rc4) will be the last one to
introduce major changes, after that *all* changes have to go through
this mailing list so that they get properly reviewed. This includes
further 0.1.x releases, for which a separate 'stable' branch will be
created, and the patches should state clearly that they are for this
branch.
The development for 0.2 will continue on the 'master' branch, and the
rules will be different. I will try to send my own patches for review
but only the ones I think are not trivial. Contributors can send pull
requests, but if the code needs review; patches must be sent.
In case you want to try the patches I just sent for review, you can
use the 'next' branch. I've tested this throughly with valgrind and
injecting random connection errors, it seems to be rock-solid :)
That's all for now.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
Xueyong Zhi
most open source projects have more than one maillists.
On Feb 7, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "msn-pecan" group.
> To post to this group, send email to msn-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to msn-pecan+...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/msn-pecan?hl=en
> .
>
Felipe Contreras
> I think it is better to use another maillist for patches and commits, most
> open source projects have more than one maillists.
Well, I don't think "most people do it" is a good argument in favor.
Most people use autotools, that doesn't mean we should. Or following
the typical mom advice: if your friends jump off a bridge; would you?
I tend to follow what successful projects (IMO) do, like Linux, and
git; there's only one mailing list and everything is discussed there.
Advantages:
1) everyone is in sync
2) less burden to the ones participating in both
3) a patch can turn out into a discussion that users can opine to
Disadvantages:
1) Users might think there's a lot of noise (can be easily fixed by
filtering [PATCH])
Now, if we imagine split mailing lists I would think both of them
would be very low traffic. If we expect the same levels of traffic we
currently have, the 'users' mailing list would be essentially dead.
But again, it's hard to predict what would actually happen, that's why
my proposal is: let's go ahead and see how it turns out. Say, in one
month if people think there's too much traffic, then we split the
lists.
What do you think?
--
Felipe Contreras
Craig Harding
--
Felipe Contreras
Felipe Contreras
> Might as well keep it in one list if there will potentially be low traffic.
> If the linux mailing list seems to work ok with that structure, might as
> well follow suit unless.
> Just prefix a 'PATCH' in the subject or some other mail header variable so
> people/gmail can filter appropriately.
Ok, there hasn't been a lot of opposition so for now we'll stay with
one mailing list... let's review the decision after one month.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
Felipe Contreras
One month has passed. As I expected there was a period of a lot of
patch movement, but then it stabilized.
What do you think? Do we need another mailing list?
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras