-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[meta] Project maintainer wanted #316
Comments
Thank you, @formatc1702 for describing your situation and suggesting different paths to bring this project further. I've not been as active as I want myself either lately, but I'm willing to help as long as the tasks don't get too big. The number of changes in #251 is a bit overwhelming, and I therefore have not been able to get the oversight that I feel is needed to make a proper review. What is the minimum effort needed to merge this large PR into |
I had been testing the refactored code using the existing examples and demos, as well as some other test files, and it appeared to be working fine except for some particular points marked as The changelog needs to be updated. I want to get rid of the Currently the code history is I would be comfortable with merging Afterwards, personally I would also be fine with merging It might feel a bit ugly to offload the burden from me onto others to clean up in the refactored branch, but it would lift a weight off my back knowing that this could get the ball rolling again. I realize the changes are a bit overwhelming when thinking about it as a diff from the previous code. So the best way to get familiar with the "new order" will probably be to step through the code using one of the known example YAMLs (pudb is great for stepping through code!) and hopefully seeing how everything fits together. |
Dear Daniel and @kvid, thanks for creating this community request. I will be happy to step up as a co-maintainer, in order to support the project on corresponding tasks, to hopefully give you some amount of breath on them, and to bring back the fun in working on this project together. We've conducted similar operations in the past 123, and I hope to be able to apply the same kind of maintenance to WireViz. In order to proceed hands-on with that, I suggest to transfer the repository into an organization you, @kvid, and humble me has administrative permissions on. We did that recently at 4 without further ado, it worked well, and even attracted others to add their projects to the same organization 5.
If you see any chance to integrate GH-251, please do 6, and let us sort out the aftermath. Don't worry about offloading the burden 7, I think it will not be too big at all 8. With kind regards, Footnotes
|
Hi again, I've just created the GitHub will employ corresponding redirects, both on HTTP and Git+SSH level, so transferring a repository to another organization will not break anything for anyone at all, and can be conducted any time. With kind regards, |
I think what @amotl suggests sounds like a solution that is worth considering, but @formatc1702 has to make the final decision. If accepting, he might want to specify some "base rules" about certain type of changes that he reserve the right to approve. |
Thank you for your replies. I am very open to transferring WireViz to the organization, I think it is a great idea. |
I have taken some first steps to get things moving and sorted.
How shall we proceed? I will quote my initial comment:
In other words, I am pushing a branch that is 90% finished but needs some good polishing, onto the greater collaborator community. Thanks so much for your support. |
@formatc1702 wrote:
Very nice!
Are you mainly worried about known bugs and TODOs already documented in the #251 code, or unknown stuff due to lack of testing?
In your opinion, what are the known major shortcomings of I can see that in your list of addressed issues, #224 and #226 are the only ones not checked. Does that mean they represent the major remaining work, and that all the checked issues are more or less finished? Or does it rather mean that the unchecked issues can be moved to a future PR? |
I would rather change base to
Please cherry pick them to avoid tangles. And add equivalent changes to
Mainly the former. There will always be more bugs to find, and I don't mind post-hoc bugfixes, but it would be nice to solve the known TODOs, at least the ones that can't be easily handled as separate PRs afterwards.
What I can think of off the top of my head, and going through the Issues that should be solved within 251:
Issues that can be moved to future PRs:
Can you take care of the first points (change base, cherry pick 0.3.1 and 0.3.2 changes into |
I have now cherry-picked v0.3.2 changes into I hope my rebasing+force-pushing doesn't create problems for any local uncommitted or un-pushed changes you might have. We can always undo it if needed. |
My force-push of
Is this just because of your temporary nonstandard version format? |
Thanks for your effort. I am not sure for the reason of this error. Previous version formats, including |
It seems "-dev" (normalized to ".dev") should only be directly followed I pushed commit 0b9af8d using |
Hi there! I really like this repo and would like to contribute! I have plenty of wiring experience but am trying to get better at my programing. I plan to start looking at the issues and see what I can work on. |
@sb424dat thanks for offering! I will try and go through the list of issues soon to see which one could be a good starting point. |
The project was moved into the new organization 2023-05-30, but old URLs are still working due to automatic redirects by GitHub. #316 (comment)
The project was moved into the new organization 2023-05-30, but old URLs are still working due to automatic redirects by GitHub. #316 (comment)
The project was moved into the new organization 2023-05-30, but old URLs are still working due to automatic redirects by GitHub. #316 (comment)
The project was moved into the new organization 2023-05-30, but old URLs are still working due to automatic redirects by GitHub. #316 (comment)
The project was moved into the new organization 2023-05-30, but old URLs are still working due to automatic redirects by GitHub. #316 (comment)
As you may have noticed, I have not been able to work on the project or even engage in discussions here for a while now. Due to shifting interests, limited time, and other factors, I currently cannot maintain WireViz at the level I feel it deserves.
Therefore I am open to talking with anyone interested about handing over the duties as main project maintainer. Obviously my first priority would be somebody out of the existing contributor pool. Anyone interested please reach out here (preferred for transparency), or privately via the e-mail in my user profile.
We would need to figure out how exactly the delegation should happen.
The two alternatives that come to mind are full control over the mainline repo, which would require a very high level of trust, or defining a straightforward process of submitting finished, tested* and documented PRs that I can simply green-light and merge.
(* Ideally tested by another contributor)
My hope is that losing the burden of being the primary maintainer could help me re-engage with the project in a different way. I have ideas for future features and certain wishes for the "look&feel", which I would like to share but do not have the energy and resources to commit to implementing and testing myself.
I look forward to any comments.
As a separate point, I would like to thank @kvid for their active involvement in responding to other users' issues, and past efforts in reviewing PRs. 🙏
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: