hpoussin(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
> Big Plug-and-Play patch for ReactOS:
> - Install drivers for devices at first boot
> - Remove now useless entries in hivesys.inf
> At the moment, driver installation only uses .inf files in ReactOS\Inf directory, and the needed files have to be in ReactOS\Inf or their final location (ReactOS\system32 or ReactOS\system32\drivers) + the user can't provide a custom driver
> Plug-and-Plays devices are only USB controllers (OHCI and UHCI) and serial ports now.
>
>
> Updated files:
> trunk/reactos/bootdata/hivesys.inf
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/io/driver.c
> trunk/reactos/services/umpnpmgr/umpnpmgr.c
>
How the nic driver ( realtek 8139 for example ) can be installed now ?
Upto now , it was installed manually by adding "rtl8139 entries" in the
registry ( hiveinst.inf file) as per wiki driver page.
Regards
Gge
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> I regret really that Steven don't have time
> right now, since he's best suited to this position (at least by a number
of
> expos he's taken part in :-))
I also wish Steven could find the time to take on this role.
It's unfortunate as this role seemed to be almost written for him.
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
I'm currently preparing the doc on how to publish ROS.
Since I did this a several times I made a QnD script which I want to
reference in my description. It's quite not a real solution, but better
than nothing on the way until rbuild gets that feature/target.
Where do you think I should check that in?
I think of a subdirectory at reactos/tools
thanks
Hi,
I was just fiddling around with reactos and am interested in getting
some stuff to compile with msvc. (I tried 2003 and 2005 express beta 2)
However, the sln workspace files don't seem to open properly on neither
visual studio. The vcproj do; just wondering whether you guys use other
versions of visual studio?
Jurgen
Although a standard header was drafted out for the ReactOS source code,
few people seem to use it and it doesn't seem to be in the wiki.
I would like to get something in the wiki agreed on by everyone which
should be included in our source files.
I think we firstly need have a vote to see if everyone actually wants a
standard header, but I put together some info anyway to explain my thoughts
As much of the ReactOS code is licensed under the GPL, it can be reused
by anyone under the license agreements.
As the BSD code does, I think a ReactOS copyright notice should be
placed in the header to ensure people know where the original code came
from. Our current header has no provision for this meaning anyone
reading ReactOS code away from the project won't have a return point.
I was talking this over with Alex, who suggested everyone might not want
to give copyright to the foundation. Any suggestions?
Using the existing header, I have drafted a slightly modified version
/*
1 * ReactOS <place holder>
2 * Copyright (C) 2005 ReactOS Foundation
3 *
4 * LICENCE: <place holder>
5 * PROJECT: <place holder>
6 * FILE: <place holder>
7 * PURPOSE: <place holder>
8 * PROGRAMMERS: <place holder>
9 * REVISIONS:
10 * <place holder>
11 *
*/
1. This is a quick line to state the area which the code was written
for. Examples could include:
ReactOS Executive
ReactOS Win32 Subsystem
ReactOS Win32 Applications
2. The copyright should detail a date when the copyright was initiated
along with the date when it was last modified. For example:
1999 - 2004
The proceeding date should be updated each time a revision is made.
4. This line should state the licence used and where to find the COPYING
file
5. This line should state what project / binary the code is for.
Examples could include:
ReactOS ntdll library
ReactOS ws2_32 library
ReactOS arp utility
ReactOS cache manager
ReactOS thread scheduler
6. This line should state the location of the file within the repository
7. This line should state the purpose of the project / binary the code
is intended for
8. This line should state any programmers whom have worked on the code.
The programmer can also choose to add an email address along with their
name as a point of contact
9. This line should list any revisions made to the code. The revisions
should include programmers initials, which can be linked to the
PROGRAMMERS section, the date the revision was made and a short comment
describing the revision. This is not meant for bug fixes and small
modifications, but for feature additions or substantial patches
I think we should put something in the wiki in relation to this.
Does anyone have any other suggestions, or modifications to my header.
Please see the examples below.
Examples:
/*
* ReactOS Win32 Applications
* Copyright (C) 2005 ReactOS Foundation
*
* LICENCE: GPL - See COPYING in the top level directory
* PROJECT: ReactOS arp utility
* FILE: apps/utils/net/arp/arp.c
* PURPOSE: view and manipulate the ARP cache
* PROGRAMMERS: Ged Murphy (gedmurphy(a)gmail.com)
* REVISIONS:
* GM 04/10/05 Created
*
*/
/*
* ReactOS Executive
* Copyright (C) 2005 ReactOS Foundation
*
* LICENCE: GPL - See COPYING in the top level directory
* PROJECT: ReactOS kernel
* FILE: ntoskrnl/ex/mutant.c
* PURPOSE: section of the kernel
* PROGRAMMERS: Alex Ionescu (alex(a)reactos.org)
* David Welch (welch(a)cwcom.net)
* REVISIONS:
* AI 04/10/05 Fix tab/space mismatching, tiny fixes to
query function and
* add more debug output.
*
*/
/*
* ReactOS Network Stack
* Copyright (C) 2000 - 2005 ReactOS Foundation
*
* LICENCE: GPL - See COPYING in the top level directory
* PROJECT: ReactOS TCP/IP protocol driver
* FILE: transport/tcp/tcp.c
* PURPOSE: Transmission Control Protocol
* PROGRAMMERS: Casper S. Hornstrup (chorns(a)users.sourceforge.net)
* Art Yerkes (arty(a)users.sf.net)
* REVISIONS:
* CSH 01/08-2000 Created
* AY 12/21/2004 Added accept
*/
Brandon Turner wrote:
> I _strongly_ disagree with this.
Me too. I'll just elaborate on the reasons Brandon gave
> 1) No way to make sure no one is cheating and not voting a
> bunch of times.
Developers are put into the developer group on the board. Thus, only
registered developers can vote. This will stop people from registering 50
different logins and altering the vote, which could not be controlled if
everyone was allowed to vote.
> 2) I don't think everyone voting is educated well enough on
> the topic.
This is also very true. Core design decisions cannot be made by people who
do not have a deep knowledge of the subject. Opening up voting to everyone
could possibly generate in bad results
> In the case coding questions like the macros vote we recently had, I
> didnt vote.
Me either. I didn't fully understand the repercussions, therefore my vote
should not effect the outcome.
> In the
> case of a PC, I just dont think that a user that reads the message
> boards or the general mailing list will have enough info and feel for
> who should and shouldnt be a PC. In both cases people with
> education on
> the topic will probably outnumber those who do know about it,
> and might
> skew things very badly.
This is just one of many examples. Another one would be the recent
discussions between Alex and Emmanuelle about splitting win32 the subsystem.
This isn't a decision that people not working with the code should be making
.... consider the users who come into the forums asking what version of
Linux ReactOS is based on. Should they be allowed to sway this decision.
To stop any animosity of users towards devs, the votes could be made hidden.
However I don't think this is a requirement as I think the majority of users
would understand the position on voting.
It would also be interesting for users to see the voting results, and how
ReactOS is developing.
If there is a vote where the users input is needed, then it can obviously be
placed in another section where the users have write access. This was
demonstrated recently when Alex Ionescu started the poll on feature
importance.
Ged
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
cwittich(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>fix compile with msvc
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Modified: trunk/reactos/lib/aclui/precomp.h*
>
>--- trunk/reactos/lib/aclui/precomp.h 2005-10-19 21:46:17 UTC (rev 18610)
>+++ trunk/reactos/lib/aclui/precomp.h 2005-10-19 21:46:30 UTC (rev 18611)
>@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
>
> #include <prsht.h>
> #include <aclui.h>
> #include <sddl.h>
>
>
>+#if defined (__GNUC__)
>
>
> #include <winternl.h>
>
>
>+#endif
>
>
> #include <ntsecapi.h>
> #if SUPPORT_UXTHEME
> #include <uxtheme.h>
>
>
These changes are really wrong! HEADERS have nothing to do with the
compiler! The HEADERS have to be fixed...you're just building with mingw
headers and msvc, and assuming the errors are because of msvc, but if
you'll try compiling with PSDK (or vice-versa), then these changes make
no sense at all.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
This seems to have died a death again, so I'm going to bring it back up.
So far we have 2 viable options for the new voting system:
1. Have a new section in the forums where only the developer group has write
access.
Conduct all votes in there using the forums built-in voting system and
posting mechanism for comments
Vote results are stored in the database and everything is handled by the
software
All votes are anonymous / private and each developer has only one vote.
2. Design our own voting system and integrate it into the website.
This will be controlled via the global login system and all devs will
have access to initiate, vote and comment on votes.
Vote results need to be stored in a database and everything should
handled by the software
All votes are anonymous / private and each developer has only one vote.
Any comments or additions?
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
cwittich(a)svn.reactos.com wrote:
>fixed compile problems with msvc 2003/2005
>
>
>Updated files:
>trunk/reactos/subsys/system/msconfig/msconfig.c
>trunk/reactos/subsys/system/msconfig/srvpage.c
>trunk/reactos/subsys/system/msconfig/toolspage.c
>
>
>
This and r18583 breaks PCH support for GCC.
- Filip
Magnus Olsen wrote:
> if we doing 2 we need write code for it.
That's what I was thinking. By using the forums, we are adopting something
which has already been implemented and has been tried and tested by
millions.
It seems like a good place to start. We can always move it into the website
if the need ever arises, and someone ever finds the time to code it.
Ged
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
OK, there have been a few misunderstandings, which lead to the current problems
and all this partly quite angry discussions.
Let's go on and see what to do now. I recommend the following steps:
1.) Fix the console bug in question, and put a new tested release
candidate on the web.
2.) update the release procedure
(http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Release_Management_Overview)
to include the test coordinator
Of course this includes a discussion about the new content on the
mailing list.
3.) make an official vote for the test coordinator and new release procedure.
And Alex - I hope your break period will not last too long.
Regards,
Martin
Hi,
I have been away from my computer for most of the past week and will be away for another week but
wanted to weigh in on some outstanding issues.
1. I like the draft constituion Casper has ripped from Debian.
2. I nominate Casper to the Project Cordinator Position (I would like the job but I have personal
issues going on right now that may keep me busy for the next year or so)
3. I think the PC job should be for a 1 year term with no more than 2 consecutive terms. I don't
like the idea of re-electing someone over and over again even if they are doing a good job. How do
we know if someone could do a even better job?
Don't bother replying directly to me unless you just want to share comments with others. I might
not reply for a while. I would like to have votes for these issues as soon as possible.
Thanks
Steven
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Sorry to barge onto the list with what may be an offtopic post, but I am
very curious about how married ReactOS is to little-endianness. Is
there something intrinsic about how Windows is architected that would
prevent ReactOS from being ported to a big-endian platform? I noticed
that the inital work on the PPC port was done with the CPU in
little-endian mode. Was this for convenience or was this a technical
decision?
Definitely not an important topic but if someone could satisfy my
curiousity, I'd be grateful.
Thanks,
Bart
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
>
> > From: Murphy, Ged (Bolton)
> >
> > Another quick point to say that using the voting facility on
> > the board would remove the issue of giving a 'project
> > secretary' power in a secret vote. The software would control
> > that ..... And software doesn't lie or cheat :)
>
> But the database administrator (i.e.: me) could... You're just moving the
> power from the project secretary to the dba.
>
But you would have to manually edit the database and everyone would
immediately notice the change as the results are updated in real-time for
everyone to see. In that respect, although the DBA has the power to change
it as they see fit, it would be very silly to do so.
There will always be some level at which the results could be changed. If we
had a secretary, some could break into their computer and alter the results,
or they could be bribed. I think we have to accept this and draw a line at
what we consider an acceptable, reliable and trustworthy control system.
I think using the forums is the best way of removing the power of
controlling the votes from everyone.
I know you can be trusted not to alter the database, in the same way I can
be trusted not to break into the database and alter it myself.
Using the forum voting system also removes any form of human error.
> > In the way the phpbb forums voting works, each voter will
> > only ever be able to make 1 vote, even if they have multiple
> > usernames, as only 1 of those usernames will be in the
> > 'developer' group.
> >
> > You can even go as far as making the forum hidden from
> > everyone not in the developer group ..... Although I think
> > this is wrong, and should be read only to everyone else.
>
> But every other developer still gets to see my vote I think? Doesn't sound
> like a true secret ballot.
Although everyone can see the vote status, it's not possible to see who
voted for a particular option. It's only evident that 'someone' has voted.
You could even go as far as setting your board preferences so that your name
is not shown as being online when you logon. This will give complete
anonymity.
Ged.
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> > [CSH] We haven't done secret elections before. I could go
> > either way. If it's secret then you put a lot of power into
> > one person, the person that collects the votes (most likely
> > the Project Secretary). What procedure would you suggest?
>
> No, we haven't done this before, and I didn't like it...
> How about the Project Secretary nominates a neutral vote counter (can be
> anyone, Registered or Unregistered, including the Project Secretary
himself)
> which all the candidates have to affirm? Can be done in private emails
> between Project Secretary and candidates. That should ensure the
neutrality.
>
Another quick point to say that using the voting facility on the board would
remove the issue of giving a 'project secretary' power in a secret vote. The
software would control that ..... And software doesn't lie or cheat :)
In the way the phpbb forums voting works, each voter will only ever be able
to make 1 vote, even if they have multiple usernames, as only 1 of those
usernames will be in the 'developer' group.
You can even go as far as making the forum hidden from everyone not in the
developer group ..... Although I think this is wrong, and should be read
only to everyone else.
Ged.
-----Original Message-----
From: Murphy, Ged (Bolton) [mailto:MurphyG@cmpbatteries.co.uk]
Sent: 17 October 2005 09:48
To: 'ReactOS Development List'
Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Constitution
This sounds reasonable.
Phpbb can use the feature whereby only a set group can post in a certain
section of the forum, in this case, the developer group in the voting
section.
This also gives the added bonus of being a secret ballot, as Ge requested.
Comments can be made without polluting the topic, and the results can be
written to the wiki.
-----Original Message-----
From: Freworld [mailto:michael@freeworld.net]
Sent: 17 October 2005 09:19
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Constitution
Perhaps we should vote on the website rather than on the mailinglist?
The mailinglist could be used for the discussion about what exactly the
vote will be and to make the vote public with a link (most people don't
look at the website but at the mailinglist). With the new login system
it would be no problem to control that only committers can vote. This
way we would have a clean overlook what decisions were taken and what
was decided exactly.
If there is an interest in this I would implement it into the website.
Greetings
Michael
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
I'm trying to keep this as non-personal and technical as possible. I did
include names, most people will guess the names anyway.
Yesterday, Robert announced on the IRC channel that he had put RC1 on
SourceForge. Immediately, some people jumped on him, demanding to know why
he did that without the approval of the Testing Coordinator. This surprised
me very much. Not only do we all of a sudden have a TC (I'm not the only one
surprised about that:
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2005-October/005250.html), but it
seems that the TC has veto powers over publishing as well.
Please don't get me wrong, I think Andrew (WaxDragon) is doing a great job
with the testing (much of the increased stability can be attributed to
better testing), and I certainly would have voted for him if such a vote had
taken place. But that's the problem: Alex put a page on the Wiki
(http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/ReactOS_Testing_Coordinator) and
appointed Andrew as TC. In my book, that makes him Alex' testing
coordinator, not the ReactOS project testing coordinator.
Naming Andrew TC is only a minor problem as far as I'm concerned, after all,
he's the right guy for the job, the only problem is the procedure followed.
I do have a major problem with the role definition as presented on the Wiki
though. I want to focus on "The TC can decide as his will which bugs to
promote to Blocker status (thereby blocking a new release)" for now. This is
simply unacceptable to me.
End of 2003, beginning of 2004 we've had a long discussion about the release
process. In the end, general concencus was reached on the text presented
here: http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Release_Management_Overview.
There was no formal vote, since we didn't do those at that time, but at the
time it was very clear that everyone agreed to it. As far as I know, no
ammendments to this document have been approved, so it still stands as a
valid, agreed-upon process for the ReactOS project. (To make it absolutely
clear: the TC Wiki page is just some text that someone wrote, it does not
have the same status.) If you feel that the Release Management Overview is
not up to date or otherwise needs to be changed, draft an amendment and put
it to vote. Until that happens, we're all bound by the current version.
At the time, we agreed we should do time-based releases, a new release every
two months. Basically it would be a snapshot of the tree at that time, much
like the Wine project does with its monthly releases. After branching a RC1
would be put out. Period. No mention of "we put out a RC1 when all blocker
bugs have been fixed and the TC has approved the release". On the contrary,
the reason to put out a RC1 was to find as much bugs as possible and
hopefully fix them before the final release.
The idea behind the time-based releases is "release early, release often"
(see the famous Cathedral/Bazaar article,
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/), you
release even if you know about some bugs. So, do I think we shouldn't have
"blocker" bugs at all? Let me put it this way: if none of the 30 devs feel a
bug is important enough to be fixed in the feature freeze period before a
release, I do question the severity of the bug.
The time-based releases started to go wrong at the end of last year. 0.3
seemed around the corner at that moment, so we decided to postpone the
release a bit (we did that before with the 0.2 release, which worked out
ok). But now, one thing lead to another, and we completely forgot about the
release schedule. I was very pleased to see we were picking up the schedule
again, with 0.2.8 being released 2-3 months after 0.2.7. I feel very
strongly that we should continue this, go back to the original plan of
making snapshot releases every two months. Of course, we should try to
stabilize the releases as much as possible, but I would like to remind
everyone of this quote from the Wine release announcements, which applies to
us equally well: "This is still a developers only release. There are many
bugs and unimplemented features. Most applications still do not work
correctly.".
A final word of support for Robert: He did EXACTLY what he was supposed to
do by placing RC1 on SourceForge and I completely back him on his decision.
Gé van Geldorp.
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
>
> Yes, that is what RC1 is for. It is supposed to be made immediately after
> branching, when entering feature freeze. It's status is basically no more
> than that of a random svn version. Perhaps "RC1" is a misnomer.
<snip>
> Perhaps we should call
> it "FF" (Feature Freeze) instead and rename RC2 to "CF" (Code Freeze)?
My understanding of RC in the software world is a Release Candidate, meaning
we have removed every bug we could find and we think this software is now
ready for release.
Therefore I think RC gives out the wrong impression and should not be used.
Code Freeze or Preview Release sounds good to me.
> > However, I have decided to no longer
> > continue as TC, if I was even TC to start with.
>
> I am really sorry to hear this and hope you will reconsider.
I also hope you will reconsider. IMO, the assignment of a TC has proven to
be one of the most successful ideas I've seen since I started following the
project. The work you have done so far has been fantastic and I would like
to see it continue.
Ged.
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
There has been a great deal of talk lately about coordinators. In my
opinion there should be:
kernel coordinator - controls the development of the kernel.
device driver coordinator - makes sure device drivers are written and
code managed.
network coordinator - makes sure networking is complete before 0.3.0
or other release.
User interface coordinator - enables the UI is stable and allows
users to get a great ReactOS experience.
testing coordinator - this team will test reactos on various hardware
bits. They will keep a log of what hardware bits work and those that
need support - for instance on Virtual PC (latest Mac OS X) enabling
USB support makes ReactOS crash. A list of that hardware needs to be
supported -- eventually.
release coordinator - Once a release is scheduled this team makes
sure releases are released on time.
web coordinator - this team managers the web aspects of ReactOS. This
team is pretty much complete.
and IRC coordinator - this coordinator will keep logs of what has
been discussed on the IRC channels. A daily list of main topics will
be available on the wiki. This will keep developers up to speed on
what is happening on IRC if they are away, or if someone has a quick
message for other teams.
These are suggested teams. Each team should have a coordinator and
keep a log of information for each team. The coordinators should be
able to communicate with other coordinators of other teams. Once
weekly they should have a personal chat on IRC or email discussing
the next release or feature addition. This is the way my company
operates and it is very efficient.
Rick Langschultz
rlangschultz(a)cox.net (Home)
rlangschultz(a)ellemaespa.com (Work)
rlangschultz(a)email.uophx.edu (School)
Hi all
Before anyone else slips this through (I kid, I kid!), I would like us
to move to vote on a ReactOS Development Coordinator. Before we vote,
anyone that wants to run, please step up.
The DC would really have the responsibility of facilitating
developers. I don't know if we already have a page on this, but I
would say this means helping other developers reach their potential in
contributing to ReactOS through development. This also entails
facilitating communication within the team and with other teams
(testing, UI, translation). I'd like some discussion on this thread as
to the role of the DC to prevent future confusion.
Regards
Jason
I like and agree with all 4 of your suggestions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Royce Mitchell III [mailto:royce3@ev1.net]
Sent: 17 October 2005 13:32
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: suggestion to close (was Re: [ros-dev] Prelude to voting for the
Testing Coordinator Roles andResponsibilities.)
Here's a combination of various suggestions to hopefully begin to close
this matter:
1) Go with Gé's suggestion and rename our candidates to x.x.x-FF and
x.x.x-CF respectively.
2) TC has no power to block FF - doesn't make sense to do so.
3) TC has power to block CF, subject to be overruled by a vote should a
majority feel it is not critical enough.
4) No matter which way we enter CF, it takes an informal vote on the ML
to drop back to FF for major discovered bugs - but any single developer
can request and be granted a formal vote.
Andrew, would you still be willing to run for TC and continue the
absolutely fantastic work you've done there given these, assuming
everybody would agree to them?
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
Hello everyone.
I think there is alot of time and energy being wasted regarding the
Testing Coordinator role, and it's responsibilities. First the
responsibilites need to be solidified. When I started acting in the
TC role, this was the outline I was shown by Alex, and agreed to
perform:
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/ReactOS_Testing_Coordinator
I am pretty pleased with the description, and have managed to balace
performing these responsibilities with having a real life, wife and
child included. Seems everyone agrees I am doing acceptably.
I've tried to review the stability of ReactOS about once a week, since
it takes about 4 to 5 solid hours to build debug and release builds,
install them, load test applications and check out regressions, bugs,
and newly working features.
I've tried to keep the bugzilla database up to date, and filled with
"Good Bugs", and I even wrote up a wiki article on how to do so.
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/File_Bugs. I have tried to
steer people away from reporting bugs in the IRC channel and the
forums. I am usually available on IRC, and occationally surf the
forums for bug reports and reminders.
The last part of the obligations of the TC is the working applicaitons
list, and when Alex and I discussed this, he came up with the example
listed, but it was understood that the format of list was flexible.
This is sort of what the "State of the Repository" emails have been
about.
I am collecting notes on a testing method than can be applied by our
more inclined users, and a way to integrate a "testing database" that
can show the status of apps using reports submitted by users or a
testing team. I am also working on updating the parts of the wiki
that involves testing in some manner, including building the source
(and setting up the environment), using virtual machines to test,
debugging, filing bugs and so on..
Please review and discuss. I would like to have the vote as soon as possible.
Thanks for everyone's support,
WD
--
<arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
Freworld wrote wrote:
> If the forum is not the form you like I could include another form of
> website voting. You could also peculate voting mails on the mailing
> list. This project stands on a certain factor of trust.
I personally think we should open up a new section in the forums entitled
'Voting'
Everyone with commit access should be placed in the 'developer' group and
the developer group should be given write access to this section.
Polls should be made using the built in voting system.
Should the 'voting' section should be made read only, or invisible to other
users?
Results should be posted onto the wiki
> Perhaps we should make a vote which voting system is preferred? :)
Although ironic, I think this is the only way. We will need a few more
suggestions first of how the voting system should work.
Ged.
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com
This sounds reasonable.
Phpbb can use the feature whereby only a set group can post in a certain
section of the forum, in this case, the developer group in the voting
section.
This also gives the added bonus of being a secret ballot, as Ge requested.
Comments can be made without polluting the topic, and the results can be
written to the wiki.
-----Original Message-----
From: Freworld [mailto:michael@freeworld.net]
Sent: 17 October 2005 09:19
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Constitution
Perhaps we should vote on the website rather than on the mailinglist?
The mailinglist could be used for the discussion about what exactly the
vote will be and to make the vote public with a link (most people don't
look at the website but at the mailinglist). With the new login system
it would be no problem to control that only committers can vote. This
way we would have a clean overlook what decisions were taken and what
was decided exactly.
If there is an interest in this I would implement it into the website.
Greetings
Michael
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On
Behalf Of Ge van Geldorp
>>Sent: 16. oktober 2005 23:56
>>To: 'ReactOS Development List'
>>Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Constitution
>>
>>Looks good. A few comments:
>>
>>The Registered Project Members can (by General Resolution) override any
>>decision made by the Project Coordinator or the Area Coordinators.
However,
>>the Repository Coordinator and Project Secretary can make decisions
>>"preferably consistent with the consensus of the Project Members". It
seems
>>to me that Registered Project Members should be able to override their
>>decisions too.
>>
>>
>
>[CSH] Right. How about changing:
>* Override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or Area
Coordinator.
>* Appoint or dismiss the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator.
>
>to
>* Override any decision made by the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
>* Appoint or dismiss the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
>
>
>
>>There is a mandatory 1 week discussion period and 1 week voting period for
>>each vote, with no escape clause. For some votes (whether to release or
not
>>comes to mind) 2 weeks seems a bit long. Can we change it so that the
>>proposer can ask for shorter periods, with a safeguard that the shorter
>>periods will be denied if a single Registered Project Member objects?
>>
>>
>
>[CSH] I thought of having a "quick vote" for decisions which are needed
here
>and now (like whether or not to release now) and not necessarily need to be
>documented anywhere else than the mailing lists for future reference, but
how
>would you define the two?
>Maybe we could allow the Registered Project Member that calls for the vote
to
>choose any number of days of voting period less than 7 days, but at least
2?
>days and no discussion period? Any Registered Project Member already has
the
>right to demand a revote at any time (maybe there should be some protection
>from abuse of that right? One could spam until he/she gets what he/she
wants).
>
>
>
>>I really would like Coordinator Elections to be secret (or private, not
sure
>>what the correct English term is). I should be able to cast my vote
without
>>the candidates knowing on who (or even if) I voted. I believe this should
be
>>explicitly mentioned in the Coordinator Elections voting procedure.
>>
>>Ge van Geldorp.
>>
>>
>[CSH] We haven't done secret elections before. I could go either way. If
it's
>secret then you put a lot of power into one person, the person that
collects
>the votes (most likely the Project Secretary). What procedure would you
suggest?
>
>Casper
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ros-dev mailing list
>Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk
<mailto:postmaster@exideuk.co.uk> and then delete this message.
Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com