Re: ego website

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

On 22 April 2014 15:18, alex diavatis <alexis diavatis gmail com> wrote:

> What if 500 extensions with monthly updates?

I strongly doubt this will ever be the case, but giving up and just
letting bad extensions find their way in the machines of our users
because somebody, somewhere, may have written an extension that is not
just a reimplementation of something that was available in GNOME 2.x
and wants *all* users to use it is just not going to happen, as long
as extensions are served from a gnome.org machine. the reputation of
the whole project is staked on not harming our users, or letting third
parties harm them by our omission.

a concrete proposal would be to add more people to the pool of
available reviewers, to reduce the waiting time; this means that we
should find a way to contact the active and experienced extension
developers and have them spend some time reviewing other extensions.
maybe have a pre-review process that is meant to reduce the work load
of the Shell developers, so that the obvious, time consuming stuff is
screened first.

fact is: the amount of people writing code is smaller than the user
base; and the amount of people capable of reviewing code is smaller
than the amount of people writing code. by coupling these two facts
you get that there will always be a certain delay and bottleneck. I'm
not sure how long is the queue for Firefox extensions, but I'm pretty
sure that it's not shorter than the one in the Shell — and Firefox has
more reviewers, as well as more extension developers.

ciao,
 Emmanuele.

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> > hi;
> >
> > On 22 April 2014 14:40, alex diavatis <alexis diavatis gmail com> wrote:
> > > The question here is why GNOME Devs should explicitly review the
> > > extensions?
> >
> > because extensions run in the same process space as the window
> > manager, which is a privileged piece of software.
> >
> > > Add a notice that we aren't responsible for the quality of extensions
> >
> > this is not a matter of quality: it's a matter of shipping an
> > extension from a gnome.org website that can do whatever it wants with
> > the input and output of your system.
> >
> > > and let users review them.
> >
> > this is even worse than not having anybody reviewing them.
> >
> > > If possible have just some automated tests.
> >
> > it's not possible, unless you can write tools that manage to
> > understand the intent of the code.
> >
> > ciao,
> >  Emmanuele.
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Sam Bull <sam hacking sent com> wrote:
> > > > On mar, 2014-04-22 at 08:51 -0400, Norman L. Smith wrote:
> > > > > My entry in the queue is recent (less than two weeks ago, there is no
> > > > > personal complaint).  I understand extensions are adjuncts to the
> > > > > shell
> > > > > and other priorities will always come before them.
> > > >
> > > > From what I can tell, it seems that there is only one person reviewing
> > > > extensions. This results in the queue only being reviewed like every 2
> > > > months or something, which causes long delays (I'm just an extension
> > > > dev
> > > > myself). I'm guessing there's just nobody else volunteering to help
> > > > with
> > > > reviews.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe if some kind of public call was put out, it might be possible to
> > > > find more some more reviewers, in order to improve this experience.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gnome-shell-list mailing list
> > > > gnome-shell-list gnome org
> > > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gnome-shell-list mailing list
> > > gnome-shell-list gnome org
> > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
> > B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/



-- 
W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name
B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/