[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-panel-devel
Subject:    Re: Quality Team: LCD weather station and calendar (in panel) are really broken
From:       David Edmundson <david () davidedmundson ! co ! uk>
Date:       2012-06-14 19:01:06
Message-ID: CAGeFrHD1_kqyDA1MbFq7rNq-zg9vhOwtdrZhF_m+LeFcb-HPMQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo@kde.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 16:58:55 David Edmundson wrote:
>> so much resistance. Reviews are slow,
>
> often they happen the same day, sometimes they don't. i would like them t=
o be
> faster as well. when i keep on top of them and do the reviewing myself, i=
t is
> fast. when i don't ... well ..
>
On the topic of reviews, I consider it's a problem (not your fault)
that they all seem to fall to you or Marco. For reviews to work,
everyone from the most beginner GSOC students to the most advanced
developers need to be doing them even if not everyone hits "ship it",
I've been trying to help with this on reviews I feel I'm getting to
know the code, but it's a culture change to make this happen more
regularly.

>
>> replies on maliing lists (such
>> as this one) can be very condescending instantly blaming an entire
>> team for a lack of communication and most ML threads seem to derail
>> into arguments.
>
> this has only been the case since a recent expansion of the project happe=
ned
> and new people joined in. this has not been the status quo for the last f=
ew
> years, and it is not enjoyable for anyone.
>
>> Have you discussed the weather LCD applet with the team before denying
>> the request.
>
> yes, on this very list. Lu=EDs Gabriel suggested a solution, as someone w=
ho is
> working on what may well be the next revision of the weather applet (done=
 this
> time with QML). i agreed that solution would work. it was then implied th=
at
> this was not acceptable, and we really should just do what the QA team sa=
ys.
> this is completely unnacceptable.

No-one is saying that you should do always do what the QA team says,
the thread was re-opened with "this doesn't fix the issue for 4.9, we
still need to do something".

>
> as for decision making authority, in KDE that is the maintainer.
>
> the author of the weather dataengine is currently unavailable, and in lie=
u of
> them being here, then the maintainership falls on my shoulders.
>
> i also happen to be the module maintainer for the repository this compone=
nt is
> in.
>
> this is the standard way of doing things, and it works if people respect =
that.
> i find it disapointing that i need to somehow defend that i am allowed to=
 make
> decisions over code that i maintain.
>
We also shouldn't  take your word blindly without discussion simply
because you're the maintainer.

You have the final say, and none of us would change the code without
permission, but this doesn't make the first decision you make always
instantly right. You can't honestly say you've never argued with a
maintainer of another component because you've strongly believed you
were correct on how to make KDE better.

>> I've not seen anything? Either you haven't, and have just
>> decided on behalf of your entire team which isn't a good example of
>> communication, or there's a communication channel which doesn't
>> include me...which again isn't a good example of good inclusive
>> communication.
>
> you will notice that Ben answered first. then Lu=EDs, with a possible sol=
ution.
> then i replied to Lu=EDs. what other discussion in the open are you expec=
ting?
>
>> The real reason this happened this sort of things happens is because
>> Plasma does not have an attitude of everyone doing reviews. Everyone
>
> i'm not sure what you are saying here. i can read this a few different wa=
ys,
> but i can't relate it to the topic of the LCD widget or communication on =
this
> list.
>
> are you refering to the commit that was reverted? could you explain what =
you
> mean by the above a bit more so i can respond accurately? thanks.
>

The review part was referring to the reverted commit. (sorry for the confus=
ion)

If Anna had submitted a review request before reverting all would have
been handled gracefully without any problems. However, we can't only
say in retrospect of a bad commit "you should have had this reviewed"
if we don't do it on every other commit. Trying to move the
conversation from "this was bad" to "this is how we can make things
better in future".

Regards

Dave

> --
> Aaron J. Seigo
> _______________________________________________
> Plasma-devel mailing list
> Plasma-devel@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Plasma-devel mailing list
Plasma-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]