Mini SVN for newbies

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply

Are you interested in a full access mini SVN?

Yes
5
25%
No
14
70%
sounds good, but not for me
1
5%
 
Total votes: 20

Mrkaras
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Mini SVN for newbies

Post by Mrkaras »

I were thinking of creating a separate SVN repository containing only select few Reactos parts and allowing people full commit access.

the idea was that the included modules would be low priority and easy things that newbies could play with, and if they made even a very small change for the better they could commit it, the combination of lots of people who don't really know much might just add up to a significant amount which could then be submitted as a patch for real-Reactos. somebody could correct a typo or add one 3 line function and it would still be worth wild, not wasting time of somebody that has to commit a thousand mini update patches.

if it got vandalised (because of having so open full commit access) it would not be too much of a big deal because it is isolated. would anybody be interested if I do set that up? any recommendations on a suitable SVN host?

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

Sorry to say I don't agree with it.

beryl the fork of compiz. Is a good example where this goes baddly wrong. Everyone has commit access in beryl its broken more than it works. Even when it works it has defects that have not be fixed. It started off as a side project then it forked away.

People are new then need a guiding hand on code quality. Even with the current tree we have had quality problems.

If a sub project running side by side with a reactos module. Bit like the old linux development tree. If tree does not work and the end of 60 day cycle tree be flushed and put back to what is in the main reactos tree.

Yes this would be savage. Without it people get sloppy. And the only way to make sure you patch will stay is to submit it to the main tree for approval.

PS 3 line patchs are accepted quite a lot. Small patches are simpler to work out where you stuffed up than large ones.

Mrkaras
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Mrkaras »

Thanks, I wanted advice just like that and I will take that into consideration.

As far as code quality/helping hand I were thinking it would produce a group or people as similar skill levels where it would be better to ask very simple questions (how do I declare a variable in C...) whereas here even the newbie questions are at a higher level, reactos related rather than basic coding.

I had intended that people would only commit code that does work, but may be trivial and that it would be periodically submitted back to the main reactos for approval/committing.

if trivial amounts of changes are fine then I should make patches more often, I have some work on solitaire but not finished (what I have done works fine, I just haven't done as much as I would have liked). I don't know when I will get back to doing anything more on it (I don't know how to access a variable from a separate module (separate .c file)).

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto »

I'm afraid that it would be difficult to review and commit back all those changes. Who will do it? Even trivial changes sometimes not committed from Bugzilla.
I don't know when I will get back to doing anything more on it (I don't know how to access a variable from a separate module (separate .c file)).
There is a difference between C and C++.

Mrkaras
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Mrkaras »

hto wrote:I'm afraid that it would be difficult to review and commit back all those changes. Who will do it? Even trivial changes sometimes not committed from Bugzilla.
that was basically the idea behind my plan was to reduce the load on the people doing the commits by only submitting significant and useful amount of code while keeping all the small efforts used but separate until they become significant. the mini SVN would not be reviewed before the users committed and it would only need to be reviewed before it finally made its way into reactos.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto »

I think that's a good idea for applications, such as calculator, wordpad, etc. No risk of forking.

Mrkaras
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Mrkaras »

yes, I meant for separate apps like that, things that can run by them selves. kernel parts are too impotent and most likely too difficult for that sort of thing.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto »

if it got vandalised (because of having so open full commit access) [...]
Or make a simple automatic registration procedure to allow people enter their name / email, then they should be mailed with assigned SVN nick/password.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

hto is most likely right with auto registration process.

Who did what patches are required to maintain a copyright trace. So people cannot just injection illegal code.

I am still against it. But if it is going to happen safe guards have to be in place.

A single line of code can be significant if its in the right place. As I see it more like the Linux testing trees. To find out if a Idea is a lemon or not on a short time frame. Without a trace on users you will not know who is submitting lemon code.

Reactos is very lay back on svn access. People earn the right to get it by quality of patches.

Beryl is the reason I fear it. Everyone one is given commit access even if they are the worse coder in the world. There will still have to be rules. Anyone in. But repeated errors equal out. Or lack created errors get access to more fun stuff?

Mrkaras
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Mrkaras »

I had thought a registration would be good but I hadn't thought about illegal code.

It looks like more people are against this than for it so unless lots more people come and say they want it it doesn't look likely to go ahead.

Oh and I don't mean any of this as any sort of criticism of the way the main reactos/SVN/buggzilla is organised, I wouldn't expect it to be any different to it is, just trying to help where I can.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

If I was coming across that way I did not mean it.

Side trees would have to work in the system of the rest of the project or they are problems. Traceability of where code comes from has to be maintained,

Personally I have a feelling it went to vote too soon. The complete plan with how it would integrate long term into Reactos.

I personally disagree with the idea of a free for all. If its planed right to might be able to get new developer interested and learning.

Setting up any form of project complete or side takes a lot of planing. Because causing a forking of reactos would be the worse error that could happen if a free for all svn is setup. Systems have to be in place to prevent all these problems. Without it most people will say no because its not worth the risk to Reactos.

Yes good old risk vs gain.

Avalos
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:04 am

Post by Avalos »

yes

cppm
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:03 pm

Post by cppm »

What about other ideas for increasing momentum of development?

I gather that increasing the profile of reactos among the technical community is always a basic plus, any ideas on that?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 21 guests