1 |
2 cents from me in case of connection with contributions on github: |
2 |
|
3 |
- Someone should automate mirroring for https://github.com/gentoo/gnome |
4 |
- And review periodically pull requests there if there will be some... |
5 |
|
6 |
On 11.08.2015 18:32, Michał Górny wrote: |
7 |
> Hello, everyone. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Now that we're officially on git and can officially use pull requests |
10 |
> to provide rapid community interaction, it'd be convenient to have |
11 |
> a little better framework for pinging package maintainers. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> With the unofficial mirror/pull request project, I was either looking |
14 |
> for project member GitHub accounts and pinging found project members by |
15 |
> name, or talking to them directly on IRC. However, with the growth in |
16 |
> number of pull requests this will become more and more inconvenient. |
17 |
> Therefore, I think it's time to be able to mirror teams willing to work |
18 |
> with GitHub community there for easier 'pings'. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I have two ideas right now: |
21 |
> |
22 |
> 1. creating GitHub Gentoo project teams corresponding to willing Gentoo |
23 |
> teams, |
24 |
> |
25 |
> 2. preparing lists of GitHub usernames on project wiki pages. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Solution 1. is cleaner. In this case, we create GitHub teams under |
28 |
> the Gentoo projects, and add appropriate Gentoo developers having |
29 |
> GitHub accounts to the teams. Then, in PRs we can just ping the whole |
30 |
> team like @Gentoo/Qt or like. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Solution 2. avoids adding any GitHub teams. In this case, in team wiki |
33 |
> page we collect team member usernames like "@Pesa, @kensington, ..." so |
34 |
> we could copy-paste it to pull requests. We still require extra effort |
35 |
> when 'assigning' PRs but at least I don't have to lookup the same |
36 |
> people over and over again. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> With some Wiki people help, we could even implement updating GitHub |
39 |
> teams automatically following Wiki member changes. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> Your thoughts? |
42 |
> |