Re: 3.18 topics: application revival

[Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net>]

On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 01:12 +0300, alex diavatis wrote:
> 1) Move to Github. More advertisement, easy to watch the changes,
> obvious advantages.

We already mirror on GitHub (but I have not checked how clearly we say
that it is just a mirror and if we point to
https://wiki.gnome.org/Git/Developers ). If you refer to entirely moving
to GitHub: I dislike the idea of relying on closed source software.
 
> A notice here, BGO has poor communication outside of GNOME developers,
> in comparison with smaller projects in Github.

Could you elaborate? What kind of "communication"?
> 2) Change release cycle schedule on applications. I don't believe that
> people are very excited to contribute on something 
> and wait for 6 months to see it "live" coz of UI freeze policy. It's
> bad for users and for development in general too.
Most distros release every 6-9 months. When it comes to distribution of
our product, GNOME is not directly shipped to end-users. The described
problem would mostly remain except for those users on rolling releases.
> 3) Have more acceptance. I know you may don't want some "features",
> but it is better than having an 
> under-development module. Plus these contributors are likely to work
> on other things as well.

Do you refer to "earlier" make contributors co-maintainers and work on
having "lower expectations" when it comes to gaining trust? We have e.g.
https://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution/stats/?period=y&ofs=10 showing us
names of contributors (code, translations, docs) per module, but we have
nothing in place to tell us "This user does not have Git commit rights".
And nothing either to identify the actual Git activity of a maintainer
who might be listed in the DOAP file but has not been active for ages.

Cheers,
andre

-- 
Andre Klapper  |  ak-47 gmx net
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/