incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <>
Subject Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Dec 2012 ([ppmc])
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:15:58 GMT
On 04/12/12 16:59, Gary Martin wrote:
> OK, thanks for the suggestion. I attempted to embed it within the 
> paragraph rather than tack it on at the end. It might not be any 
> better of course. Anyway, I attempted to keep my mention of 
> infrastructure neutral to avoid offsetting the attempts to show a 
> little more optimism (talk of successful release and the smoother 
> process for 0.3.0, dropping the explicit suggestion that there is more 
> to improve in documentation to help new contributors..) and here is my 
> new suggestion:
> Since the last report, Bloodhound has successfully created two more 
> releases.
> The problems highlighted in the September report, regarding the use of an
> external site for the download of some of the dependencies, have been 
> largely
> solved by working with their maintainers to ensure that their packages 
> are
> available through a standard location (pypi).
> Releases themselves are beginning to become a little more routine 
> although the
> time between the initiation of the vote for release of 0.2.0 and the 
> subsequent
> announcement of the result was of concern but the 0.3.0 release was
> significantly smoother.
> Three new committers have been added to the project and they have driven
> considerable conversation on the mailing lists in a relatively short 
> time. The
> barriers to contributing have been reduced significantly and we plan to
> continue to work on this area. In addition to the identification of 
> tickets
> that are suitable for newcomers we now have documentation of aspects 
> of ticket
> management and the workflow that we use. Proposals for larger 
> enhancements are
> also documented on the wiki in such a way that they reflect the 
> decisions made
> on the project dev mailing list, reducing the work associated with 
> digging
> through the mailing list.
> From the infrastructure side the project has two open requests. One of 
> these
> requests was opened in July, requesting a means for the Bloodhound source
> browser to have effective access to a local copy of the svn repository.
> Alternatives have been suggested but there is no obvious resolution to 
> this
> issue at this point.
> So, if we drop the establishment of a frequent release cycle from the 
> list of the top three issues, I could add Grow User Community in the 
> second position if that seems distinct enough. Other suggestions are 
> welcome.
> Cheers,
>     Gary

Right.. as there were no further comments, I updated with the above text but 
for a few minor changes.


View raw message