Hi devs,
I think we are now satisfied with our experimentation with the "users"
mailing list on discourse. I propose you to move the "dev" ML too.
My main point is that it allows advanced formatting (which is good when you
have complex proposals), meanwhile the formatting is lost with our
archiving tool like markmail (it's plain text).
Here is my +1.
Thanks,
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
Hi devs,
I don't think there is currently a process that is in place to handle
pull requests and I have the feeling that the way there are handled
today is a bit random.
There are usually comments sent out on each pull request but sometimes
it seems that some pull requests are going in sleep mode and it's not
clear who is in charge.
I would like to suggest that a process is put in place where it's
clear who is responsible for a pull request and a status is given to
the contributors that propose that pull request.
Something like:
Assigned developer: XXXX
Status:
New -> new pull request, not yet assigned
Assigned -> assigned to a developer, he is in charge of reviewing the
pull request and ask for modifications or accept it. The developer can
auto assign it to himself. If nobody does, we need to decide how they
will be taken into account.
ModificationsRequired -> for now rejected with comments. Contributor
needs to apply comments and then change back to Assigned for further
evaluation
VoteRequired -> there are no more comments, but a vote is required as
the changes to XWiki core are important
WaitingFinalAuthorization -> optional step for complex patches where
a additional authorization would be required (need to define who would
be the persons that give the authorization)
WaitingApplication -> there are no more comments and no changes or
vote required. The pull request can be applied and is waiting for a
developer to apply it
Abandoned -> contributors is abandoning the pull request (cannot do
the changes, no more time, etc..)
Rejected -> pull request is rejected (quality not enough, etc..)
Applied -> pull request is applied
What do you think ?
Ludovic
--
Ludovic Dubost
Founder and CEO
Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/
XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com
Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost
Hi devs,
As part of the STAMP research project, we’ve developed a new tool (Descartes, based on Pitest) to measure the quality of tests. It generates a mutation score for your tests, defining how good the tests are. Technical Descartes performs some extreme mutations on the code under test (e.g. remove content of void methods, return true for methods returning a boolean, etc - See https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes). If the test continues to pass then it means it’s not killing the mutant and thus its mutation score decreases.
So in short:
* Jacoco/Clover: measure how much of the code is tested
* Pitest/Descartes: measure how good the tests are
Both provide a percentage value.
I’m proposing to compute the current mutation scores for xwiki-commons and xwiki-rendering and fail the build when new code is added that reduce the mutation score threshold (exactly the same as our jacoco threshold and strategy).
I consider this is an experiment to push the limit of software engineering a bit further. I don’t know how well it’ll work or not. I propose to do the work and test this for over 2-3 months and see how well it works or not. At that time we can then decide whether it works or not (i.e whether the gains it brings are more important than the problems it causes).
Here’s my +1 to try this out.
Some links:
* pitest: http://pitest.org/
* descartes: https://github.com/STAMP-project/pitest-descartes
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/ControllingTestQuality
* http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes
If you’re curious, you can see a screenshot of a mutation score report at http://massol.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Blog/MutationTestingDescartes/…
Please cast your votes.
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi.
I'm currently working on Velocity 2.0 packaging.
If that's OK with you, I would like to incorporate
DeprecatedCheckUberspector.java into Velocity, but I need a statement
from your part to be able to change its licence to Apache 2.0 (LGPL and
Apache 2.0 licences aren't compatible).
By the way, I take this opportunity to tell you that if there is another
specific part of xwiki-commons-velocity that you think should be
integrated on our side, or an important missing feature you'd like to
insist on, don't hesitate. I already integrated VELOCITY-825, for
instance, so String->Enum constant conversions are now handled by
Velocity. There may be other important conversion cases you'd like to
see handled.
Regards,
Claude
Hi,
We have discussed this subject multiple times, but we don't have an
official vote and conclusion on the topic.
Problem: In JIRA who is the Assignee of an issue fixed by a Pull Request?
1: Contributor
- he provided the solution
- giving the attributions, the contributor might feel encouraged to
contribute more
- we could do some JIRA statistics on external contributions, but this use
case can be covered by GitHub statistics
2: Committer
- he does the merging on his account and he becomes responsible for the
committed code.
- in case there are problems, the committer needs to find solution, since
we can't rely on contributors availability
- in doing the PR review, the committer spends a lot of time analyzing and
testing the provided solution
We are talking here about complete solutions provided by the PR, since in
case of partial solutions, the committer can assign himself on the issue
(depends on the quantity of modification he does).
Let me know what you think,
Caty
Hi devs,
Here are some ideas about how the repository application used on
extensions.xwiki.org could look like if we were to provide multiple display
layouts for extensions, require the contributors to add custom icons,
colors and screenshots.
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/exoGrid
In terms of design I tried to make it look as a proper application store,
but it will be heavily influenced on users providing ratings for extensions
and contributors on providing quality icons / colors/ description /
screenshots.
In terms of interaction, the biggest change would be a revamp of the search
functionality. Currently users are using it, but it's a generic search,
focused on text results.
Let me know what you think,
Caty
P.S. Proposal ideas iterated with Marius, Alex and Eduard.
Hi all,
I am new on this mailist and thanks for the invite.I have do proposal for
Add a Rest API to XWiki Notifications.
mr Clément Aubin came into contact with me with some helpful links to
understand how notifications is impliment on Xwiki platform and how
notifications works.I see that you have a complete Notificaton API that
works perfect for Xwiki platform therefore you want to make a REST API to
take notifications from other platforms to Xwiki platform? I understood
this from the speech .Second REST API will be created from scratch? or will
build up on the existing?
Thanks for reading
Nikos.