Re: Plans for Midnight Commander development

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
* Regarding mc^2 fork, I would like to review the code and get it
merged. After that, we can make a major 5.0.0 release, which may take
some time to stabilize. I would need help with code review to make this
happen in finite time though.

you can count on at least some attention from me.

* If you want to invest a large amount of work into something to prove
yourself, but are unsure about it, ask on the list. If you want to
tell me (or anyone) what and how we should do, but aren't ready to
invest large amounts of work yourself, then please don't.

you certainly realize that the boundary of what is considered
constructive input/feedback and useless noise is highly individual and
context-sensitive. luckily, the effort to reject (or outright ignore) a
particular contribution is roughly inversely proportional to how
outlandish it is. just don't overdo it.

* Regarding the infrastructure & the development process that we have
set up and followed while still being active: nothing is set in stone.

However, keep in mind that the best way to convince me is to actually do
the work, e.g. if someone has been triaging Trac for some time, and can
explain why it's been painful, and how a proper migration to service X
that he is ready to prepare will solve all the problems and make him
├╝ber productive, I'm likely to fall for this argument.

i have no problem whatsoever with trac as a bug tracking system
(obviously, as long as the performance doesn't break down entirely). it
isn't awesome, but it certainly does everything a project of the size of
mc needs.

however, as i have expressed multiple times over the past years, i do
have a problem with it being used as a code review tool - because it
simply isn't one. even you guys effectively demonstrated that: while you
used it as a patch tracker (with rather clumsy workflow management), you
did all the actual feedback on jabber.
so while i'm not exactly a fan of github (as indicated in my other
mail), i certainly consider it a significant improvement over trac, and
would fully support making it the official channel for patches.

one might argue that the fragmentation of tools is a disadvantage, but i
don't really see a significant problem with that.
one idea, though: it would be awesome if you could set up github
authentication for trac.

however, there *is* a significant problem with people using the github
issue tracker while trac is the official one - i'd disable the github
one instantly.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]