Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (10)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 3 hrs ago - more...
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2012-04-04
, 16:12
|
|
Posts: 3,404 |
Thanked: 4,474 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ Germany
|
#22
|
As the developer of the apps.formeego.org client software, I like the idea of having a version for Fremantle. So if apps.formeego.org is going to have a Fremantle target, I will port the client.
Currently I'm curious to see whether built-in QA in the client helps with the lack of testers. QA will be made more prominent in the client if you have enabled the staging repository.
Currently I'm curious to see whether built-in QA in the client helps with the lack of testers. QA will be made more prominent in the client if you have enabled the staging repository.
__________________
Tidings - RSS and Podcast aggregator for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/tidings
Cargo Dock - file/cloud manager for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/cargodock
Tidings - RSS and Podcast aggregator for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/tidings
Cargo Dock - file/cloud manager for Jolla - https://github.com/pycage/cargodock
|
|
2012-04-04
, 16:20
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#23
|
Originally Posted by Jaffa
It's being announced over the Mer general mailing list. I've forwarded to the maemo developer mailing list. Please pardon the cut and paste here.
As timoph kinda says, can you point to the meeting announcement so a) we can attend and b) I can publicise it?
"From: martin brook <martin.brook100@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Subject: [mer-general] Fwd: Replacement for MeeGo Community OBS
To: mer-general@lists.merproject.org
Hi Guys,
Thanks for your time at the meeting and you can find Minutes and the full log below.
[17:14] <@MerBot> Meeting ended Tue Mar 20 17:14:38 2012 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Meetings . (v 0.1.4)
[17:14] <@MerBot> Minutes: http://mer.bfst.de/meetings/mer-meet...-20-16.00.html
[17:14] <@MerBot> Minutes (text): http://mer.bfst.de/meetings/mer-meet...3-20-16.00.txt
[17:14] <@MerBot> Log: http://mer.bfst.de/meetings/mer-meet...16.00.log.html
I was thinking of scheduling another get together on 10 April at 16:00 UTC , I'll send out an email nearer the time and if anyone wants to sponsor/donate please get in touch.
BR
vgrade"
 |
|
2012-04-04
, 16:21
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by X-Fade
That's because the app was never finished, and was never in a functional state. (I know, I still have it installed...)
Achipa had created a client for doing QA on device though. Nobody really followed up on this.
|
|
2012-04-04
, 16:21
|
|
Posts: 3,074 |
Thanked: 12,960 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ Sofia,Bulgaria
|
#25
|
Originally Posted by Jaffa
+1
...
Maybe (and this is OTTOMH) the promotion requirements for an orphaned package should be much higher so that, effectively, the whole community is taking on responsibility for supporting this package (i.e. ensuring it doesn't have any critical issues
ten chars
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to freemangordon For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-04-04
, 16:29
|
|
Posts: 1,397 |
Thanked: 2,126 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Dublin, Ireland
|
#26
|
Originally Posted by Jaffa
I don't know why you insist is saying that the discussion has not been done in the open, you can see the thread in TMO with Council involved and then the continuation in the mailing list with Council approval.
The council could ultimately make the decision (but not the testing squad list), but I'd like to see the rationale and discussion in public anyway so that there can be buy-in to the council's decision.
Originally Posted by Jaffa
It's the same situation for all those packages already in Extras that doesn't have a maintainer any more.
Maybe (and this is OTTOMH) the promotion requirements for an orphaned package should be much higher so that, effectively, the whole community is taking on responsibility for supporting this package (i.e. ensuring it doesn't have any critical issues; or we have a way of carrying comments through from testing to Downloads)
The real situation right now is that almost everyone use Devel as the only working repository, not only users installing whatever crap appears over there, but also developers that don't care any more with the broken QA system.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ivgalvez For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2012-04-04
, 16:30
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#27
|
Originally Posted by SD69
Thanks. For the record, here's the original email.
It's being announced over the Mer general mailing list.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
|
|
2012-04-04
, 16:38
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#28
|
Originally Posted by Jaffa
I originally was half-in the auto-promote camp, but you make a valid argument against it. Perhaps what we really need in a way for super-testers to be able (after community discussion) to push a package from testing to extras after it's been unpromoted by it'd developer for a set time. That would solve both issues: Highly used and stable items can be promoted without the worry that something will be auto-promoted that wasn't ready.
There should be a very clear and public discussion with the whole community about a change to having unmaintained packages in the stable repo.
I think the real issue here is that we have several packages that are never leaving testing which are by far ready, but simply don't have an active maintainer.
As a side issue... Maybe giving Council a tool/account that can change an abandoned packages ownership would be a better fix. That would mean to promote a package testers would need to pester Council (so it won't happen without lots of scrutiny), but it's something that can be done without needed to take up the limited resources we have when it comes to maintainer efforts. It would also allow changes in ownership to vital projects when maintainers randomly vanish. which has happened a few times in the past year or so.
Thoughts?
| The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-04-04
, 16:45
|
|
Posts: 1,513 |
Thanked: 2,248 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ US
|
#29
|
Originally Posted by pycage
That is great news. Thank you.
As the developer of the apps.formeego.org client software, I like the idea of having a version for Fremantle. So if apps.formeego.org is going to have a Fremantle target, I will port the client.
Currently I'm curious to see whether built-in QA in the client helps with the lack of testers. QA will be made more prominent in the client if you have enabled the staging repository.
You might want to read the preliminary discussion in the IRC meeting if you can. It was implied that the community OBS would be moved to a different entity (still undefined). I am still unclear what else is implied by such a move.
| The Following User Says Thank You to SD69 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-04-04
, 17:11
|
|
Posts: 5,335 |
Thanked: 8,187 times |
Joined on Mar 2007
@ Pennsylvania, USA
|
#30
|
Originally Posted by ivgalvez
Does that "almost everyone" come from the set of active posters on t.m.o, or from the larger set of N900 owners, an unknown number of which have never heard of maemo.org?
The real situation right now is that almost everyone use Devel as the only working repository...
Users already here have an avenue for support when a broken package winds up in Extras. Those not aware of this community will be at the mercy of local shops that likely don't even remember the N900 and Nokia Care, who probably can offer no suggestion other than a reflash.
I'd prefer an approach that attempts to minimize potential harm.
__________________
maemo.org profile
maemo.org profile
Last edited by sjgadsby; 2012-04-04 at 18:09. Reason: typo correction
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to sjgadsby For This Useful Post: | ||
There should be a very clear and public discussion with the whole community about a change to having unmaintained packages in the stable repo. There may not be much practical difference, but you don't know how many N900 users use the repo (which is enabled by default, remember) but aren't following TMO or the Testing Squad list.
The council could ultimately make the decision (but not the testing squad list), but I'd like to see the rationale and discussion in public anyway so that there can be buy-in to the council's decision.
Maybe (and this is OTTOMH) the promotion requirements for an orphaned package should be much higher so that, effectively, the whole community is taking on responsibility for supporting this package (i.e. ensuring it doesn't have any critical issues; or we have a way of carrying comments through from testing to Downloads)
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org