Is it possible to become faster with PR merging on the expense of
thoroughness in the case of FreeMarker IDE, if I'm the one who sent
the PR (or if I have tested a PR)? I understand that there's very
little time for reviewing this plugin, that's why I'm trying to take
more responsibility on myself. Some recent PR-s are less trivial (more
time to thoroughly review) than the earlier merged ones, plus some
similar PR-s weren't even done yet because they build on top of the
ones not merged yet. So I'm a bit worried about how all these will get
in on time. Also, take into account that this plugin is quite broken
and was neglected for so long, so certainly I will only make it better
overall even if I introduce some regressions accidentally.
For convenience, here are some of the pending PR-s:
Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 2:33:25 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
Basically, I was thinking about pulling more responsibility on
That's surely a risk as I'm totally new to Eclipse plugin development,
and I don't yet know your policies either. So it's very useful if some
old timer JBoss Tool developers review the PR-s, but often I would
rather take the risk so that I can quickly fix/update things. That's
why on the FreeMarker list I asked if we could/should roll our own
build and update site, which can thus publish things regardless of the
pace PR-s can be processed (note that that thread has started before
you guys started reviewing the PR-s). But of course, for me the best
is if the whole process can stay here. So, who's possibly eligible for
"reviewing and testing PR's", or how would that work?
Monday, April 11, 2016, 11:26:11 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2016, at 8:34, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> Thank you very much! To be perfectly clear, I didn't come here to
>> complain and force JBoss employees to do this. I'm asking if there's a
>> way to change the overall process somehow. Perhaps not, but, who
> There is - we have an updatesite for freemarker site that builds every
> night, so you can releases/fixes from it more or less immediately.
> To get more content in, we need more content in PR's to the repos and if
> wants to step up to review and test PR's let us know.
> As you notice if we come aware of something going stale we do react - to
> avoid it going
> stale repeatedly we need someone to have time and skills to push
> If it was something else you had in mind let me know. In any case, we
> are pretty open
> on what happens with freemarker tooling as long as it keeps (within
> reason) being compatible with
> multiple freemarker versions so it can be used in real projects that end
> up having wide
> range of freemarker content.
>> Friday, April 8, 2016, 12:00:19 AM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
>>> Sorry for such long delays.
>>> I pushed the 4-month old PR to the master. We are currently very busy
>>> preparing JBoss Tools 4.3.1 release (should happen in two weeks) but
>>> then we will find some time to review the other two PRs.
>>> Thanks for your contributions!
>>> On 04/07/2016 05:39 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>>> I'm a contributor at the FreeMarker project, and would like to help
>>>> maintaining JBoss Tools / FreeMarker IDE
>>>> (org.jboss.ide.eclipse.freemarker). The problem I'm facing is that
>>>> pull requests get merged with too big delay. For example, I have a
>>>> simple pull requests waiting for 4 months now, because of the
>>>> resources available for reviewing them (as I was told). I wonder if
>>>> can help improving this situation somehow.
>>>> If the above can be addressed, then I guess I could specify the
>>>> nightly build update site URL to the users, so that they aren't
>>>> affected by the release cycle of JBoss Tools. After all, FreeMarker
>>>> IDE is technically quite independent of it.