whiteboard

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

whiteboard

Jonathan Campos
I'm watching the whiteboard and it would be great if people could keep the
whiteboard separated by originator's name.

whiteboard
 > jonbcampos
  > content
 > etc

This way we don't conflict with:

whiteboard
 > di
 > di-idea2
 > different-di-idea
 > tabnavigator
 > tabnavigator2
 > nother-tabnav

Thanks. Just throwing out an idea.

--
Jonathan Campos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Michael Schmalle
Quoting Jonathan Campos <[hidden email]>:

> I'm watching the whiteboard and it would be great if people could keep the
> whiteboard separated by originator's name.
>
> whiteboard
>  > jonbcampos
>   > content
>  > etc
>
> This way we don't conflict with:
>
> whiteboard
>  > di
>  > di-idea2
>  > different-di-idea
>  > tabnavigator
>  > tabnavigator2
>  > nother-tabnav
>
> Thanks. Just throwing out an idea.
>
> --
> Jonathan Campos
>

This came up and Dave Fisher said in the past it really didn't matter.  
I asked this exact question.

Sounds like things need to be talked about here, I would suggest you  
list out some other things if you have them.

Again, I was going off of what he said.

Mike


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Jun Heider

On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote:

> Quoting Jonathan Campos <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I'm watching the whiteboard and it would be great if people could keep the
>> whiteboard separated by originator's name.
>>
>> whiteboard
>> > jonbcampos
>>  > content
>> > etc

I would agree with Jon on this. Although not necessary I think it will really help in the long run to start whiteboard areas with committer name folder.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Jonathan Campos
In reply to this post by Michael Schmalle
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Michael Schmalle <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Sounds like things need to be talked about here, I would suggest you list
> out some other things if you have them.


I can't remember the exact response but I want to say it was shown in
previous examples to be using the username.

I wasn't trying to pick on the "navigators" folder or the "mobile-popups"
folder. I can just see this naming causing a problem really really quickly
where usernames will not.

--
Jonathan Campos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Peter Elst
In reply to this post by Michael Schmalle
> Sounds like things need to be talked about here, I would suggest you list
> out some other things if you have them.
>


Also agree with Jonathan on getting some structure in the whiteboard and
using username folders.

It would be good to know how we define the whiteboard stuff, I assumed it
was personal experimental work. Is it expected that others just contribute
to the same package and make changes?

Noticed earlier the .* files from Tink's navigators contribution got
removed by somebody - while that might turn out to be a good best practice
- is the whiteboard contributor not the one who should administer his
experimental area? Its just something for us to decide on how we handle
this and collaborate in whiteboards, not trying to specifically highlight
this as a problem.

- Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Michael Schmalle
In reply to this post by Jonathan Campos
Quoting Jonathan Campos <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Michael Schmalle  
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Sounds like things need to be talked about here, I would suggest you list
>> out some other things if you have them.
>
>
> I can't remember the exact response but I want to say it was shown in
> previous examples to be using the username.
>
> I wasn't trying to pick on the "navigators" folder or the "mobile-popups"
> folder. I can just see this naming causing a problem really really quickly
> where usernames will not.
>
> --
> Jonathan Campos
>

Hi Jonathan,

I totally agree with you and that is what I wanted to. I moved the  
folder into mschmalle, I can tell I having been using GIT way to long,  
messed up the move commit.

Mike




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Michael Schmalle
In reply to this post by Peter Elst
Quoting Peter Elst <[hidden email]>:

>> Sounds like things need to be talked about here, I would suggest you list
>> out some other things if you have them.
>>
>
>
> Also agree with Jonathan on getting some structure in the whiteboard and
> using username folders.
>
> It would be good to know how we define the whiteboard stuff, I assumed it
> was personal experimental work. Is it expected that others just contribute
> to the same package and make changes?
>
> Noticed earlier the .* files from Tink's navigators contribution got
> removed by somebody - while that might turn out to be a good best practice
> - is the whiteboard contributor not the one who should administer his
> experimental area? Its just something for us to decide on how we handle
> this and collaborate in whiteboards, not trying to specifically highlight
> this as a problem.
>
> - Peter
>

Well in a discussion with Tink on list, I can't remember what thread  
he said hack away. I am looking at that project so, the list said we  
don't like development files. Since I was working in that folder, I  
removed them.

I don't think I have to say that I would never go into something and  
delete stuff without talking to the contributor.

Mike


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Peter Elst
>  I don't think I have to say that I would never go into something and
> delete stuff without talking to the contributor.
>

my mistake, sorry Mike - so in general lets say somebody wants to work on
something in the whiteboard, would you create your own copy of it or put it
in the original folder?

I'm just asking because with the username in the folder, the situation
could arise that the code was originally put in the whiteboard by own
committer but 99% of the code got contributed by somebody else.

Guessing that is not an issue but might create some confusion.

- Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Michael Schmalle
Quoting Peter Elst <[hidden email]>:

>>  I don't think I have to say that I would never go into something and
>> delete stuff without talking to the contributor.
>>
>
> my mistake, sorry Mike - so in general lets say somebody wants to work on
> something in the whiteboard, would you create your own copy of it or put it
> in the original folder?
>
> I'm just asking because with the username in the folder, the situation
> could arise that the code was originally put in the whiteboard by own
> committer but 99% of the code got contributed by somebody else.
>
> Guessing that is not an issue but might create some confusion.
>
> - Peter
>

Hi Peter,

I asked the exact same questions(creating a "branch" folder, committer  
directory by name) to Dave and he said that a lot of the times you  
just go in hacking. I really need to find the exact thread of  
discussion so you can read what he said.

Obviously this is our project so agreeing on this stuff is essential  
to a happy community and development spirit. :)

Mike







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Jonathan Campos
In reply to this post by Peter Elst
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Peter Elst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm just asking because with the username in the folder, the situation
> could arise that the code was originally put in the whiteboard by own
> committer but 99% of the code got contributed by somebody else.
>

In my case I wasn't worried about ownership. I guess that is what header
files are for:

author: person A
contributors: person B, C, and D

I was just worried about confusing up the folder structure. Once inside a
dev's whiteboard I wouldn't argue too much about a dev's organization.
Except the .* files. I would just think that people don't want to have
those in the repo either way.

--
Jonathan Campos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Rui D. Silva
In reply to this post by Jonathan Campos
Hi Peter,

I totally understand what you're trying to say and I have doubts myself
about the confusion that might arise not so much regarding ownership, which
is less important in such a project, but more regarding whether that
particular branch is open for contribution or if the author would prefer to
do his developments in isolation.

In order to keep things simple, I'd say to keep the username folder
strategy for now and see how things progress.

Yet another approach that is kind of middle ground would be to not separate
by username, but to include the author's username in the branch name
alongside with the feature of the branch (I think it was Omar who suggested
this). The main advantage of this approach would be that it brings the
feature name to the root of the whiteboard (I don't have to go into each
user's folder to see what is being worked on).

Best,
Rui

-------- Original Message --------

> From: "Peter Elst" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: segunda-feira, 9 de Janeiro de 2012 22:46
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: whiteboard
>
> >  I don't think I have to say that I would never go into something and
> > delete stuff without talking to the contributor.
> >
>
> my mistake, sorry Mike - so in general lets say somebody wants to work
on
> something in the whiteboard, would you create your own copy of it or put
it
> in the original folder?
>
> I'm just asking because with the username in the folder, the situation
> could arise that the code was originally put in the whiteboard by own
> committer but 99% of the code got contributed by somebody else.
>
> Guessing that is not an issue but might create some confusion.
>
> - Peter



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Doug Arthur
On Jan 9, 2012 5:01 PM, "Rui Silva" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yet another approach that is kind of middle ground would be to not
separate
> by username, but to include the author's username in the branch name
> alongside with the feature of the branch (I think it was Omar who
suggested
> this).

Why not just require a README.txt in each whiteboard folder, and the
responsible developer can place valuable notes on the work being done,
including if they want everyone else hands off.

Otherwise this is not a bad idea to keep features under whiteboard versus
individual usernames.

This is one area where git is handy.

- Doug
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Jonathan Campos
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Doug Arthur <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not just require a README.txt in each whiteboard folder, and the
> responsible developer can place valuable notes on the work being done,
> including if they want everyone else hands off.
>

Like the README.txt. Great addition.

I still would prefer personal projects behind a username, feel more
git-like to me. And I could see so many personal projects (and people)
working together that the list would be HUGE.

--
Jonathan Campos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Omar Gonzalez
I don't mind either approach (named folders or name in folder name) but I
think we can all agree that we should all add README files to our
whiteboard experiments just for courtesy, you never know how you might
inspire someone to make a new feature or improvement.

-omar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Dirk Eismann
README files are also handy when it comes to describing how to set up the
project, build it, list required dependencies etc.

Dirk.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Rui D. Silva
In reply to this post by Jonathan Campos
+1

-------- Original Message --------
> From: "Dirk Eismann" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: terça-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2012 7:44
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: whiteboard
>
> README files are also handy when it comes to describing how to set up the
> project, build it, list required dependencies etc.
>
> Dirk.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Bertrand Delacretaz
In reply to this post by Jonathan Campos
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Jonathan Campos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...I wasn't worried about ownership. I guess that is what header
> files are for:
>
> author: person A
> contributors: person B, C, and D

If you mean adding that in source file headers, that's frowned upon at Apache.

The problem is that down the line people might contact person A
directly instead of talking to this list - person A might not want to
get direct queries, and it's good for everybody to see other's
questions.

Also, "svn annotate" (or
http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=incubator%2Fflex%2Ftrunk)
is a much more precise way of knowing who wrote which code, for the
rare cases when that's needed.

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Bertrand Delacretaz
In reply to this post by Peter Elst
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Peter Elst <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...so in general lets say somebody wants to work on
> something in the whiteboard, would you create your own copy of it or put it
> in the original folder?...

In general I'd say everyone's welcome to touch any code as long as
they know what they are doing - and that might include asking
whoever's currently working on the module in question if that's ok.

-Bertrand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Peter Elst
> In general I'd say everyone's welcome to touch any code as long as
> they know what they are doing - and that might include asking
> whoever's currently working on the module in question if that's ok.
>


Maybe I'm overthinking this, but how would the original committer need to
be contacted? Does that type of thing also happen on the list to have it on
the record or do you reach out to the committer directly?

I like the idea of everyone being allowed to touch anything, but can
imagine different people might have different goals and get in each others
way.


- Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: whiteboard

Michael Schmalle
In reply to this post by Bertrand Delacretaz
Quoting Bertrand Delacretaz <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Jonathan Campos  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> ...I wasn't worried about ownership. I guess that is what header
>> files are for:
>>
>> author: person A
>> contributors: person B, C, and D
>
> If you mean adding that in source file headers, that's frowned upon  
> at Apache.
>
> The problem is that down the line people might contact person A
> directly instead of talking to this list - person A might not want to
> get direct queries, and it's good for everybody to see other's
> questions.
>
> Also, "svn annotate" (or
> http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=incubator%2Fflex%2Ftrunk)
> is a much more precise way of knowing who wrote which code, for the
> rare cases when that's needed.
>
> -Bertrand
>

So basically, your saying there really shouldn't be any traces of  
copyright or author in a source file correct? Just the Apache 2  
license header.

Mike



12