Just couple of short questions. Where is it advised that developers should/could make "[Announce]" topic to talk>application area? Could not find from wiki or have I just failed in reading. Actually it could be quite hard to get 10 votes without making announce to talk area.
That just came to my mind after noticing new version of Battery-Eye in extras-testing and going garage page and just thinking that why would I use that forum there to talk to developer? Feature requests and bugs yeah but so called general talking. Yes i know that there is forum also but for me it just feels bit weird. Too many places..makes me dizzy.
.edit
Oh maybe this was wrong topic?
That kind of announcements at talk are always welcome, even if you don't need voters, more people will be aware of your apps, they will try it and post some feedback there.
VDVsx,
Thanks, but my questions were basically to admins and people who manage extras-testing process or who wrote those rules because I think that there should be notation in WIKI about announce thing. Right now it seems that it's just thing that some developers do and some do not and we might not be sure if it is just lack of information or just that developers just doesn't want to announce even thought he/she wants votes to get extras.
Why would anyone promote to extras-testing if he/she would not want to eventually go to extras? You can stay in development and just fool around there.
VDVsx,
Thanks, but my questions were basically to admins and people who manage extras-testing process or who wrote those rules because I think that there should be notation in WIKI about announce thing. Right now it seems that it's just thing that some developers do and some do not and we might not be sure if it is just lack of information or just that developers just doesn't want to announce even thought he/she wants votes to get extras.
Why would anyone promote to extras-testing if he/she would not want to eventually go to extras? You can stay in development and just fool around there.
I was wondering about that, after a discussion at IRC I realized that some devs want their apps in -testing because is more safe for users than -devel, but they are not willing to promote them/or the apps still have some issues, so announcements are advisable but not a requirement.
Why would anyone promote to extras-testing if he/she would not want to eventually go to extras? You can stay in development and just fool around there.
I also ran across a developer recently who stated that not following the QA rules is more important to him personally than seeing his package in Extras. - So there's all kinds of people out there, and their priorities and personal preferences are mixed and sometimes unpredictable. In the end you can only accept it.
I also ran across a developer recently who stated that not following the QA rules is more important to him personally than seeing his package in Extras. - So there's all kinds of people out there, and their priorities and personal preferences are mixed and sometimes unpredictable. In the end you can only accept it.
Why should we accept someone who flaunts the process just to feed their ego? Someone with that mindset isn't exactly a true contributor. Let them manage everything on their own, including repositories... we don't need that attitude.
That kind of announcements at talk are always welcome, even if you don't need voters, more people will be aware of your apps, they will try it and post some feedback there.
But please, use the same thread for each new release, or something. Unless there is a hugely active thread about an app, there's no need for a separate one for every iteration!
Originally Posted by
You can ignore the garage forum, is what I do
It is confusing for people, though. Actually, garage in general is.I still find myself wondering if i should be putting apps into garage rather than just -devel. Is the general perception now that garage is deprecated?
/me builds a bridge and a spur and reroutes the thread onto its track.
Our proposal is a team of testers(Testing squad ), no only one Gatekeeper, some of the members of the team will have special powers, that should be only used in very special situations.
More on that very soon, I only have to check a few more things before proceed.
But please, use the same thread for each new release, or something. Unless there is a hugely active thread about an app, there's no need for a separate one for every iteration!
It is confusing for people, though. Actually, garage in general is.I still find myself wondering if i should be putting apps into garage rather than just -devel. Is the general perception now that garage is deprecated?
No, garage is up&running, you can use the resources there as you like, personally only use garage SVN/GIT and the bugtracker for a small project.
It is confusing for people, though. Actually, garage in general is.I still find myself wondering if i should be putting apps into garage rather than just -devel. Is the general perception now that garage is deprecated?
I had a dream. In my dream, we were not thinking in terms of garage, git, svn, t.m.o., bugtracker links, screenshots, icons, but we had Maemo Groups. A group could be centered around anything, but most often these were applications. Users could see pointers to all the resources related to that group, regardless of where they're actually kept. No traversing t.m.o. to see if there is a thread about it, no hunting for bugtrackers, source repositories, mailing lists, reviews, screenshots, cauldron lists, testing status, whatever.To reitate, it's not about integrating everything into a single site, it's about having a single place where people can find out everything about a project, *regardless* of where it stores it's resources (google code for source, b.m.o. for bugs, launchpad for tasks, t.m.o. for feedback = 4 different places supporting one project ? fine !). The same place could be used to administer maemo specific aspects of projects ((re)set bugtracker links, screenshots, icons, etc).
I had a dream. In my dream, we were not thinking in terms of garage, git, svn, t.m.o., bugtracker links, screenshots, icons, but we had Maemo Groups. A group could be centered around anything, but most often these were applications. Users could see pointers to all the resources related to that group, regardless of where they're actually kept. No traversing t.m.o. to see if there is a thread about it, no hunting for bugtrackers, source repositories, mailing lists, reviews, screenshots, cauldron lists, testing status, whatever.To reitate, it's not about integrating everything into a single site, it's about having a single place where people can find out everything about a project, *regardless* of where it stores it's resources (google code for source, b.m.o. for bugs, launchpad for tasks, t.m.o. for feedback = 4 different places supporting one project ? fine !). The same place could be used to administer maemo specific aspects of projects ((re)set bugtracker links, screenshots, icons, etc).
That's what i'd like to see, too. It was sort of the idea behind my "official thread" request for devs in the Games forum (e.g. http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=40903), but to work right it really has to be a first-class citizen: it doesn't matter if it's implemented as a wiki, forum, or custom web app, as long as it is the first place people end up when looking for app-specific information, and has delegable edit rights (something a forum post doesn't have...but at least a thread does via replies).
While that would require some work up front, it actually reduces the load for the web developers and maintainers overall as the community developers don't have to spend time integrating some of the resources and can defer the linking of the relevant resources to the dev/maintainer, who can in turn save time by not trying to follow disparate streams and being able to delegate to fans in the case of really busy/popular apps.
), no only one Gatekeeper, some of the members of the team will have special powers, that should be only used in very special situations.