Have updated to 16 Feb. Note: I haven’t added any of the background/architecture type tasks that people like @jhass and have been adding, as I don’t really understand it - but they should definitely be acknowledged for this work in the review.
I have updated the pad to the end of February, mainly from the commit list. Would be grateful if @steffenvanbergerem and @flaburgan would check it, to see if I’ve missed any commits worth including, and particularly in the case of direct commits made by Jonne, Dennis, Steffen and others, as I’m not too certain about these. Thanks. Then we can post from the blog once it’s been checked and cleared.
Thanks!
Alright, I (hopefully) added all missing commits and PRs. I also improved some descriptions. While going through the existing review a few things were bothering me so I’ll propose a format for the review:
- Changes are grouped by developer. Developers are ordered lexicographic by their Github username.
- For each developer changes are ordered by date. (oldest commits at the top) For commits which belong to a pull request the date of the merge is the decisive factor. Only commits that have been merged in the specific month will be in the review.
- The description should be as user-friendly as possible. (No one knows what “Change disable_mail to true” means without looking at the specific pull request) If you don’t know a better description add a note so we remember improving it.
Thanks a lot, Steffen. I aimed to fulfil all three proposals when working on it, although I admit I’m not very strong on (3), because I often don’t understand the commits myself!
Will publish this tomorrow.
ps: I’ve removed the commit you added for my PR to fix a typo in the changelog, as that was only in develop, so hasn’t affected any releases.
pps: I think you need a separate development review for all your commits!
Awesome work @goob and @steffenvanbergerem
I corrected two typos, I think this is ready to be published!
Thanks for the reminder. Have just published it.
Hey, time to check what was done during march 
Good point. I’m going to be a bit busy over the next few days, but will try to help with editing if others are able to put a draft list together.
I added the missing contributions for march. Feel free to review and check if I missed any.
Thanks a lot, Steffen. I’ve been through and made a few small changes.
I’m not sure my PR belongs here, as it’s not a change to the app itself but to the tests. Actually, that’s the case with a few other PRs/commits as well. Should they be in the review even so?
I’m not sure my PR belongs here, as it’s not a change to the app itself but to the tests. Actually, that’s the case with a few other PRs/commits as well. Should they be in the review even so?
Yes, I definitely think so. The description of this thread says
It should include all contributions to the diaspora* codebase
The reason why I started this was
- to show users what “the diaspora-devs” are doing
- to motivate (especially new) devs by putting their name in a dhq post and showing them that their work is appreciated.
A good testsuite ensures that functionality isn’t broken and doesn’t break, it’s as important is the code implementing the functionality itself.
So, let’s push the “publish” button?
Thanks for the replies. That’s fine with me; I just wanted to check. I’ll publish it now.
Or maybe not, as there’s a 500 on https://admin.diasporafoundation.org/. Calling @dennisschubert …
This is awesome, I’m actually using it to check who is doing what and who to ask if I ran into a question.
\o/
How did we do for the previous ones? The whole content on the blog, and a link to the blog in the social networks / diaspora HQ?