(Monthly) development review

Awesome if you could lead this @steffenvanbergerem ! I'm sure help will be available, but someone needs to get their hands dirty and take the lead :)

I can at least help with sharing the posts via the official channels. Will from time to time most likely be able to help with compiling too.

@jasonrobinson Sure, I just updated the list of contributions in the pad. Still, if anyone would like to help:

You don't have to be a developer to improve the review which is available in the pad (and still WIP).

• Read the existing review:

  • Is there anything you don't understand and you think one could explain it in a less technical way? Add a note to that description you don't understand.
  • You understand a description but think you have a better (less technical, more precise, ...) explanation? Change the exisiting one!
  • You think you can improve the linguistic correctness of the review? Do it!

• You are aware of a new contribution?

  • Add a link (to the pull request, if no pull request to the commit itself) to the review
  • If you have a vague idea what that commit does: explain it

• You still think that you can't contribute to the review but you would like to help? Share the link to the pad with your contacts who might be able to improve it.

Hey! I'll have a look for sure. We already talked about that during the last meeting and on the bugmash monday topic I think.

I wonder if this review may be publicated on our devblog, or something else ? And then, will it be destined to other devs, or to each diasporan ? Indeed if it's to be shown to each of us, it would be interesting to set a translation group. I'm quite interesting to translate it into french.

I added the missing contributions for the last month. It would be great if you could improve the wording and make the list as user friendly as possible. (and as dev friendly as needed) Feel free to edit the review and also look out for mistakes or missing commits. You can also add some feedback in this thread if there is something which needs to be improved but you don't know how to do that. As soon as this is ready it would be great if someone could post it via diasporahq and the blog.
@y.semin This review is meant for each member of our community. It would be great if you could translate it into French once it is ready. I am not sure what would be the best way to distribute the french translation but I guess we'll find a solution.

@steffenvanbergerem I first thought to the diasporaforum.org (@rich1) . But maybe we could spread it on D*, so the wole community sees its devs are alive. what are tour feelings about this ?

Please feel free to post anything you like to the forum (and in as many languages as you wish) - the forum belongs to everyone :)

Once this is finalised, it would be good to share it on the blog and within D* through the Diaspora HQ account - I can help with both of those.

@goob There was no reaction for more than 5 days so I'd consider this "finalised". It would be great if you could read the review and look out for some obvious mistakes. (language-wise) Afterwards you can share this on the blog and the diaspora* hq account if no one has any objections.

read the review and look out for some obvious mistakes. (language-wise)

Sure, no problem. I'll ignore all the many other mistakes, then... ;)

Thanks a lot again for doing this.

:-D I should have written "at least language-wise". Thank you for your help!

OK, I have done my edits. If everyone's happy that it's up to date and correct, I'll post it tomorrow.

@jhass @dennisschubert @steffenvanbergerem @jasonrobinson @flaburgan

I'm gonna check. Sorry to be that inactive on loomio guys, time is limited and there is many noise here... I perfere to focus on github and IRC.

Is "sped up" correct? I feel like a e is missing :p

I think we should also insist that those changes are made in the develop branch and will be available only in the next release. I saw a lot of people asking "where is the chat!" after seeing the merge in develop.

Is “sped up” correct? I feel like a e is missing

Yes, 'sped' is the simple past tense of 'to speed' - it's a 'weak' verb. Thanks for your attentions.

I think we should also insist that those changes are made in the develop branch and will be available only in the next release.

I've added 'These changes will take effect with the release of diaspora* v0.5.0.0.' But are there any merged changes in that list which won't be part of 0.5.0.0? If so, I'll have to amend it to something like 'These changes will in most cases take effect with the release of diaspora* v0.5.0.0.'

@goob we don't plan to revert anything at the moment, the chat is the only unknown point, so I think you can safely affirm that these changes will be in 0.5

I agree with @flaburgan. IMO you can post this.

I'll do it now. Thanks everyone! (apart from the puppy)

I just added an empty 'month in review January' to the pad. Feel free to add contributions.

I added all contributions for January.

@goob ping ;-)

Oh thanks a lot. I'll try to look at it and edit this weekend.

@steffenvanbergerem I've done a few minor edits (mostly grammar). Please check you're happy and then I'll publish.

@goob Everything is fine. :)

@steffenvanbergerem I've just noticed that there is no PR link for the first item under Marco Colli. I can't find any PRs from him merged in January - can you find it?

@goob Fixed. (https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/pull/5493)

Lovely, thanks. Have published.

was so happy and proud of diaspora as i went this post prompting by on my stream

I started to fill the pad for February.

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.

@goob Thank you. I'll work on the review on Thursday.

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:

1. Changes are grouped by developer. Developers are ordered lexicographic by their Github username.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. to show users what "the diaspora-devs" are doing
2. 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?

@flaburgan I agree.

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?

Yup, like that. See https://joindiaspora.com/posts/47b84dc0a6540132a9551634c2c9a880

I'd do the DHQ post like this:

## diaspora* development
### [month in review (March 2015)]( - link to blog post here)

There have been many changes made to diaspora*'s codebase during March, with 66 pull requests/commits from 14 different contributors. These latest changes will be included with the release of **diaspora* v0.5.0.0**, which is coming very soon!

Say a big thank you to everyone who has helped improve diaspora* this month!

You can read full details of March's development in [this blog post]( - link to blog post here).

This list has been created by volunteers from the diaspora* community. We'd love help in creating a development review each month; if you would like to help us, get in touch via the [related thread on Loomio](https://www.loomio.org/d/rcQeDaEf/monthly-development-review).

We'll have to insert the blog post link once the admin part of the foundation site is back up. Please check my counting of PRs!

@goob fixed. sorry for the delay, lots of work stuff…

Okay, blog post created, you can check if everything is fine here: https://blog.diasporafoundation.org/15 and then I'll push the publish button.

Thanks, @dennisschubert and @flaburgan!

Just one small change I suggest: I think we can remove 'of diaspora HQ' from the sentence about the RC. I think it's unnecessary as the blog is also from 'diaspora HQ' (i.e. the same people). If you really feel it's necessary to specify who the post is by, I'd say 'our post about the release candidate' as the link, or 'this post by us'. There are also a couple of other grammar errors in that sentence, I'll correct them here:

We created a release candidate for **diaspora* v0.5.0.0** at the end of March; read [this message](https://joindiaspora.com/posts/ff21ff60bb5c0132aa721e4fdb37c9f1) to find out more about this.

(I've also used the guid for the post to help inter-post compatibility.)

I haven't checked everything again, but the formatting looks good, so I'd say 'publish!' once this sentence has been fixed.

Awesome Goob, thank you! I'll publish it soon, 9a.m. in SF and 18h00 in Europe is a perfect time for a blogpost :)

Published on the blog and with diaspora HQ :)

Thanks!