Good morning. I have been working on polishing the release notes generator script, and encountered a problematic section: the section of the release notes that thanks libraries which have sponsored developments. In order to make it so that the section can be automatically generated (and to make sure that no one is missed) I propose adding the following to patches which were sponsored by a particular library: Sponsored-by: The Library Unless there are any strong objections, I will create an empty commit on 3.6.x that lists the libraries that sponsored developments in the 3.6.x branch, and starting with 3.6.7 will automatically generate the listing. Regards, Jared -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
Hi to all, Il 11/07/2012 13:43, Jared Camins-Esakov ha scritto:
I have been working on polishing the release notes generator script, and encountered a problematic section: the section of the release notes that thanks libraries which have sponsored developments. In order to make it so that the section can be automatically generated (and to make sure that no one is missed) I propose adding the following to patches which were sponsored by a particular library: Sponsored-by: The Library
Unless there are any strong objections, I will create an empty commit on 3.6.x that lists the libraries that sponsored developments in the 3.6.x branch, and starting with 3.6.7 will automatically generate the listing.
I very like this. +1 -- Dott. Zeno Tajoli tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it fax +39 02 2135520 CILEA - Consorzio Interuniversitario http://www.cilea.it/disclaimer
Le 11/07/2012 13:43, Jared Camins-Esakov a écrit :
Good morning.
I have been working on polishing the release notes generator script, and encountered a problematic section: the section of the release notes that thanks libraries which have sponsored developments. In order to make it so that the section can be automatically generated (and to make sure that no one is missed) I propose adding the following to patches which were sponsored by a particular library: Sponsored-by: The Library Sounds a good plan. Can this appear anywhere in the comment ? (that's needed I think)
Unless the decision changes because someone object, i'll add this decision to my next RM newsletter. Jared, would you add this to the wiki as well ? (coding guideline page ? how to submit a patch ? patch workflow ?) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Jared suggested:
[...] I propose adding the following to patches which were sponsored by a particular library: Sponsored-by: The Library
I don't think this works for us. Some libraries will not wish to be associated publicly with features before their buyer/commissioner has approved them, especially private libraries. So should we hold back work until sponsor approval (and we've been burned that way before, with a delay meaning work is stale and needs rebasing before it reaches the community, then there is no funding left to do that and it falls on the floor and kittens die) or would you accept follow-up patches that only add Sponsored-by lines with a fast-track through QA and RM? Confused, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
MJ, Jared suggested:
[...] I propose adding the following to patches which were sponsored by a particular library: Sponsored-by: The Library
I don't think this works for us. Some libraries will not wish to be associated publicly with features before their buyer/commissioner has approved them, especially private libraries.
This is true of many of my clients as well. This line would not be required for any given patch, it merely offers a way for libraries who want credit to ensure that they receive it. So should we hold back work until sponsor approval (and we've been
burned that way before, with a delay meaning work is stale and needs rebasing before it reaches the community, then there is no funding left to do that and it falls on the floor and kittens die) or would you accept follow-up patches that only add Sponsored-by lines with a fast-track through QA and RM?
The Sponsored-by lines serve only for record keeping, so I see no reason why the RM could not add a record-keeping patch with the Sponsored-by line at the request of the developer (similar to the way I added a bunch of Sponsored-by lines in a patch to 3.6.x). Regards, Jared -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
participants (4)
-
Jared Camins-Esakov -
MJ Ray -
Paul Poulain -
Zeno Tajoli