Re: Need approve to committing
- From: Aurimas Černius <aurisc4 gmail com>
- To: Rahul Sundaram <metherid gmail com>
- Cc: gnote-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Need approve to committing
- Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:55:31 +0300
Hi,
I see your point, but I don't think I agree with it.
The point is not to close bugzilla tickets, but to fix Gnote bugs. I
don't see big difference between patch committed to different branch
and patch submitted to bugzilla. I'd say the later is better, as
bugzilla provides facilities for patch verification & approval.
Using different branch IMO is useful for long term work, such as
adding synchronization support or migrating to GTK+ 3.0. BTW, I
think there is sense in creating them. If I remember right, there is
some initial code for the first one, and Bug 633215 can be used as
start point for the later. What do you think?
Then commit to the main branch, fix the bugs and do a bug fix release.
I don't have permissions to make a release and to simply commit the
changes to master would be a bit of disrespect to people, who gave me
permissions to do commits at all. "With great power comes great
responsibility".
I could build and push to Rawhide and get the release more exposure as
well. Full disclosure: I am the Gnote maintainer in Fedora where
Gnote is used by default and requested Debarishi to take over
maintainership.
I don't know about Fedora policies. If it's possible, you could build
aversion from git master. I quite sure it's the most stable version of
Gnote of all available. It is marked as 0.7.3 (latest release was
0.7.2). AFAIK, nobody expects very stable software from Rawhide.
To give more stuff to test, I'm thinking of pushing these two fixes:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606492
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585048
and the five patches, implementing the notebook rename feature. Among
these five the one that is stopping be ATM is this one:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629876
It is possible to implement notebook rename without it, but this would
introduce a bug of lost template note when renaming, which I want to
avoid. So an opinion on it from Debarshi or Hubert is very welcome.
Or do you think I'm being too careful?
--
Aurimas
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]