[Qgis-developer] Pending PRs

Hugo Mercier hugo.mercier at oslandia.com
Tue Oct 6 09:01:07 PDT 2015


Probably I did not understand how a new addition to the code is supposed
to work ...

I received commit rights some times ago.

I've been using them very carefully, since I don't want to force
anything and prefer to know the feelings about design / architecture of
other devs before adding something. I consider this to be a good practice.

But it becomes problematic when deadlines should be met, usually because
funders have to know with some confidence in which release a new feature
is going to be included.

And I thought in this case if minor aspects (or even bugs) of a PR is
being discussed as the feature freeze is pronounced, the PR could be
merged provided fixes will be delivered asap (including during the freeze).

#2189 had a bit more bugs than I initially thought (UI parts are not
always easy to test), but I don't think it has major design issues ...
and I am not sure other devs think it has (Nyall ? Martin ?). So I don't
understand why it's stuck.

In this situation it's exactly as if I've been granted useless commit
rights ...

The #2322 is a little bit more of a hack, so I recognize there may be
matter of discussion (Jürgen ? Marco ?)

On 01/10/2015 09:48, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
> +1 to merge if other devs agree
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 5:45 pm Hugo Mercier <hugo.mercier at oslandia.com
> <mailto:hugo.mercier at oslandia.com>> wrote:
>     Hi,
>     I've submitted two Pull Requests :
>     https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/2189 and
>     https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/2322 that stay in a undetermined
>     state ...
>     The first one (2189) is of particular interest here. It has been opened
>     in the beginning of July and I've been fixing issues spotted by others
>     (mostly Nyall), unfortunately at a lower pace than I would have liked,
>     busy on other projects.
>     But agreement from other devs seemed needed to accept it. And ... this
>     agreement never came before the beginning of the feature freeze ...
>     So can you confirm this is now out of the scope of the 2.12 ? Or is
>     there a chance this would be an exception ?
>     I guess this happened because everyone is busy, but it is not an easy
>     situation for me.
>     It becomes hard to target a particular release version when selling the
>     integration of new features and then it does not enforce confidence of
>     funders, I think.
>     Do you see solutions to that for the future ? Probably the problem is
>     that integration of paid development depends on decisions made by
>     third-party developers that do their best to review PRs, but without
>     guarantee (i.e. are not paid specifically for that). What do you think ?
>     _______________________________________________
>     Qgis-developer mailing list
>     Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer

More information about the Qgis-developer mailing list