Weekly Roundup #73
Comments
|
💯💯💯 yes very much in favor |
|
Yeah, the blog definitely need some content and that would be a great way to start. |
|
Yes let's do it, sounds great! |
|
Very nice idea! And it solves a big problem: sometimes it's hard to understand what has been going on when out of the loop 👍 |
|
Absolutely. would be great. let's learn a lot from the Rust community. like this: https://this-week-in-rust.org/ |
ghost
mentioned this issue
|
Hi all, here is a draft of the first edition: Welcome to the first edition of the IPFS Weekly Roundup! IPFS is a new hypermedia distribution protocol, addressed by content and identities, aiming to make the web faster, safer, and more open. In these posts, we will try to highlight some of development that happened in the past week. For anyone looking to get involved, follow the embedded hyperlinks, search the wealth of information on github or join us on IRC (#ipfs on the Freenode network). Here's a summary of what happened during the December 7 Sprint :
For a sneak peek at the coming week, check out the Dec 14 sprint issue Thanks, and see you next week! Discussion points:
(Edit1, add thing from harlantwood) |
|
Forgot to star it but in the past week I wrote a bit of nodejs code that spins up a fresh IPFS node, sets it to a known ID, and publishes to IPNS using that node ID. |
|
Seeing the lead contributor names is more encouraging than 'we', imo, from the outside. Maybe at the end of each roundup, you can have a generated list of all the people who contributed with a thank you, or at least a 'There were dozens of more contributors this week, more than we could fit in a short round-up, but be assured we couldn't have done nearly as much without your help!' or somesuch |
|
Thanks a lot @eminence for doing this, some thoughts below
|
I think "IPFS Weekly" works just fine. I agree with a repo with markdown files, too. Hypothetically, that could be an issue in this repository, but I don't think it's really project management, so a repo elsewhere makes sense to me. A newsletter would also be good. We've been meaning to get on this for a while, I think, but I might be thinking of something else. But a repo, for now, with merges and the subsequent notification to everyone who watches the repo for now - that sounds good. I think using names is smart, too. We should definitely make a tool to get all contributors each week. @rvagg just made a tool that might work for this: new-contributors. I'd be happy to mess with it // find another tool // create another tool to see if we can get a readout of all contributors for the past week. What do you think of this? I know Meteor does something similar with their newsletters, thanking everyone who had a good PR.
If we move to another repo, yes. I don't really want to have this in PM, because this is a specific repo for management. A PR could be made every monday, and then comments could be taken until tuesday, when it is posted. Perhaps?
Blog would be good. I also agree with @dignifiedquire's ideas for 'Spec Updates' and 'Releases'. Sounds good. |
|
@rvagg's tool looks more robust, but a quick-a-dirty way to get a list of contributors in the last week for all repositories in repos/: contributors() {
tmplog=$(mktemp)
for repo in repos/*; do
( cd "$${repo}" && git log --format="%aN," --since=1.week ) >> $tmplog
done
sort -fu $tmplog | tr '\n' ' ' | sed 's/\(.*\)\,/\1\n/'
rm $tmplog
} |
|
Great comments all, thanks! Here's a second draft Regarding the 'Spec Updates' section, currently our ipfs/specs repo is pretty quiet, so we might not have this section each week. I think the idea is to call attention to spec updates that deserve visibility (like the RFC section from this-week-in-rust) so instead, I'm trying an 'Active Discussion' section that brings together interesting (and active) topics from all of the relevant repos (specs, notes, archives, community, etc). However for the time being, I've only re-categorized what was already selected from your syncup (I didn't go out and find new stuff to include) Welcome to the first edition of IPFS Weekly! IPFS is a new hypermedia distribution protocol, addressed by content and identities, aiming to make the web faster, safer, and more open. In these posts, we will try to highlight some of development that happened in the past week. For anyone looking to get involved, follow the embedded hyperlinks, search the wealth of information on github or join us on IRC (#ipfs on the Freenode network). Here's a summary of what happened during the December 7 Sprint : Releases
Updates
Spec Updates
Active stuff
ContributorsAcross the entire IPFS github organization, the following people have made contributions in the past week!
For a sneak peek at the coming week, check out the Dec 14 sprint issue Thanks, and see you next week! |
|
Looking really good, a note on the contrib list, greenkeeper is a bot and can be removed and I'm twice on there once as Friedel and once as dignifiedquire |
|
robots need love, too! ok, I edited the above post to remove those two entries |
|
My feedback:
Another format for different topics that dont always get updates is:
|
|
👍 to all of the above.
Agreed; only items that are done. As for this, yeah, that's true at this point. Still more work to do, though, as always! |
|
Thanks @jbenet for the comments on style and phrasing! Below is a 3rd draft. 👍 to your comments in general, but here are a few specific replies:
I am in partial agreement. One of the things that prompted me to think about producing a summary like this is that I often read the sprint notes and was left wondering "what does all this mean?". So I was in fact hoping to highlight on-going WIP stuff, even knowing that I wouldn't be mentioning everything.
To include every comment seems like too much to me. The person asking for a clarification in the support repo, for example, perhaps does not need a special mention here. I do agree that we could include people who have made really important comments (for example, mildred's feedback in the IPLD PR), but I have to admit that I'm not really prepared to attempt to make this value judgement for every comment made in a week.
Absolutely. Feedback is important stuff. Let's add this once we know where we want feedback to go. Once we get a repo, we should check-in a tool that will get the list of weekly contributors, and map their emails to github usernames. Welcome to the first edition of IPFS Weekly! IPFS is a new hypermedia distribution protocol, addressed by content and identities, aiming to make the web faster, safer, and more open. In these posts, we will try to highlight some of development that happened in the past week. For anyone looking to get involved, follow the embedded hyperlinks, search the wealth of information on github or join us on IRC (#ipfs on the Freenode network). Here are some highlights of what happened during the December 7 Sprint : Releases
Updates
Active stuff
ContributorsAcross the entire IPFS github organization, the following people have made contributions in the past week!
For a sneak peek at the coming week, check out the Dec 14 sprint issue Thanks, and see you next week! We're getting close! Thanks for all the feedback! |
yes but i think people are going to start looking at these summaries as "the view" into what's going on.
agreed. but i think actually raw comment numbers is a "good enough" proxy. sure there's some noise, but it's mostly signal after double digits. we don't have people posting willy-nilly here-- it's not the github culture. (and they'd be reported if so). in any case, i do not feel right having a list saying "these people contributed to ipfs" that fails to include the very valuable discussions. Maybe make it "these people contributed code to ipfs", with a note stating the obvious "Many more people have contributed in discussions on GitHub and IRC."
Are you sure this list is right? is it grabbing the commit logs of every repo, or what? it looks way too small. several names come to mind not listed. This list is important to get right. By creating "a way to recognize and give credit" we sign ourselves up for the "must make it a fair and accurate account" part. I think that either we have it right, or we should not at all. Recognizing some and not others will make people feel unappreciated. unfairness -- even if understandably complicated -- is very socially problematic. One possibly simple way out of this: if this is not from commits, but just the people who participated in the sprint, then instead of:
say:
with a link to the pm repo for how to participate. This may be ok, and encourage people to participate in the sprint syncs, and posting things to this repo. @eminence sorry to put make more work out of this, but since this is such a good idea that i want to make a very important part of our sprints + process, i want to make sure we get this right. |
|
ok, ill try to pull a list of every single comment made last week. once we have that, we can take a look at its length and go from there regarding the list of contributors, i'm not sure it's right. i cloned ever repo (all 66 of them) and ran the little bash snipped from @jedahan . in reviewing it, i see that it just pulls the last week's worth of commits, which is a different time period than the previous sprint, so perhaps that is the reason for the discrepancy. who did you expect to see on the list but wasn't there? |
|
This looks great to me, @eminence! I added a repo, and filled it full of the comments and suggestions from this thread. I think we should be good to go. https://github.com/ipfs/roundups Can we post this Weekly, now? I don't want it to become stale, there's been a lot of work on it! |
|
Moved to github.com/ipfs/weekly! |
eminence wrote here:
I think this is a fantastic idea. What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: