Re: Google Project for Services_Facebook

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Joshua Eichorn <josh@bluga.net> wrote: > > Joe Stump wrote: > > > > > On Apr 12, 2008, at 6:56 AM, David Coallier wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either someone from the PEAR Group or from QA (or both?). At any > > > > > > > rate, anyone want to volunteer to be granted administrative > access > > > > > > > to Services_Facebook? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oii; I can represent either one, I suspect Christian W would like > > > > > > access as well but I don't know his gmail account if any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add me then > > > > > > > I've already added Helgi, but I'd be happy to add another "just in > > case". > Send me your Gmail / Google account. > > > > BTW, I think the rules, docs, etc. should be updated to require a PEAR > representative (either QA or PEAR Group) be an administrator for any code > hosted on Google Projects (or any code hosted on publicly available > repositories). That's just me though. > > > > A notable exception is Services_Digg, which we maintain in-house for > marketing reasons (we add new features to the site, which get new API > endpoints, which get new code in Services_Digg. Obviously we don't always > want that stuff public months/weeks in advance). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > --Joe > > > > > I'm not sure what the best option is in that case. I think remaining > flexible is a good approach. The biggest thing is giving QA a way to help > out if code becomes unmaintained either permanently or for a shorter period > of time. Maybe mirroring the source control info when a release happens? I know some people develop on their private SCM and do exactly that on releases or X interval but that also gives QA a bit of a hard time, imagine someone does a lot of fixes in his tree and then god forbids dies or just loses interest or whatever, then QA only has access to the mirrored stuff which is effectively the same as just importing the newest release into any SCM we have available, you don't have the history that might be crucial for example. In this case Digg is a company which makes it a lot easier for us to get the code / history if Joe would for some reason not be able to help . What I'd prefer to see is that Joe would commit patches like he did in the in-house version; Most VC web browsers allow you diff between revision X and Y and get a patch but that's a bit wishful thinking given it sounds like a lot of work. - Helgi