buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthieu Riou <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: is buildr still active?
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:16:40 GMT
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>wrote:

> GitHub is definitely the easiest way to contribute code.  Though, I haven't
> had any contributions accepted yet, so who am I to say?  (hint, hint)  ;-)
>
> Alternatively, using Git to develop a patch and then JIRA to submit isn't
> too bad either.  Once you get over the initial learning curve (which isn't
> too severe), Buildr is a remarkably easy project to contribute to.  The
> architecture is reasonably consistent, and the code is pretty
> self-documenting.  The best technique seems to be just to dive in and try
> to
> do stuff.  For example, try to add a test framework provider, modify a
> compiler, or add support for some other tool (e.g. ANTLR anyone?).


I've contributed this back in the days:

http://github.com/assaf/buildr/blob/23ead9b569b373e659788fdaef2fdfb95029095b/addon/buildr/antlr.rb

Still works for me (tm). Assaf will probably grumble that there are no specs
for it, therefore it doesn't exist ;) But i find it useful for something
that doesn't exist.

Matthieu


>  All of
> this can be a very educational experience.  I won't pretend to know the
> whole project yet, but I'm well on my way.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ittay Dror <ittayd@tikalk.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Assaf Arkin wrote:
> > >
> > >  Specs really really help. A patch could look simple and trivial, maybe
> > >> it's
> > >> a one line fix, but writing the spec and then accepting the patch is
> > more
> > >> work than accepting a tested patch.
> > >>
> > >> If you can't figure out how to fix something, but can at least write a
> > >> spec
> > >> to prove it's broken, that's also enormously helpful. The fix may end
> up
> > >> to
> > >> be trivial to someone else, just by running the spec and looking at
> the
> > >> stack trace.
> > >>
> > >> So spec as much as possible.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I find the current way of submitting patches / specs to be
> unproductive.
> > > It's hard for people to comment on a patch: you see an email about a
> > patch,
> > > need to open the issue in the browser, download the patch, read, and
> then
> > > the only way to comment is writing an out-of-line comment in jira. and
> of
> > > course people follow jira notices far less than the "regular" mailing
> > lists.
> > >  Also, there are no clear coding conventions to follow. Finally, I
> don't
> > > remember seeing someone's patch being accepted.
> >
> >
> > I wonder how other people feel about it. I'd like to explore using Github
> > to
> > review patches before submitting them through JIRA. You still need to
> have
> > a
> > JIRA issue open, to track the issue, but review/commenting can be done
> > directly on the source. Possibly even pulling changes directly from a Git
> > repository, if you have a CLA.
> >
> >
> > We have about 14,000 lines of code in lib, additional 12,000 in spec,
> > that's
> > a lot of convention. If you see something being used repeatedly, copy it.
> > If
> > you see something inconsistent, fix it. If there's no precedence, I
> borrow
> > from Rails, RSpec, Rake in that order.
> >
> > Assaf
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ittay
> > >
> > >> Assaf
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Ittay
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tikal <http://www.tikalk.com>
> > > Tikal Project <http://tikal.sourceforge.net>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message