Merge requests in need of attention - 20th November 2020

Recent merge requests in need of attention

Back by popular demand! (Thanks Philip :slight_smile:

I notice that this week we have 4 MRs by the same person. They do indeed look worthy of review, but I wonder if I should limit to two per person in the list in future – what do you think?

Sound Recorder - Fix export dialog that disappears

Opened: Nov 07 (updated Nov 10)
Author: @rastersoft
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-sound-recorder/-/merge_requests/164

Glade - Python plugin: Fix build against Python 3.9

Opened: Nov 09
Author: @heftig
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glade/-/merge_requests/109

Seahorse - gpgme: Fix expiry date container disabled

Opened: Nov 09
Author: @jere-ortega24
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/seahorse/-/merge_requests/143

NetworkManager-fortisslvpn - Add 2FA capability to nm-fortisslvpn when the second factor authentication code is sent via SMS/email/etc.

Opened: Jul 26 (updated Nov 08)
Author: @emelenas
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/NetworkManager-fortisslvpn/-/merge_requests/19

GNOME Fonts - font-view.c: Add URL to the about dialog

Opened: Nov 08
Author: @jridehalgh
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-font-viewer/-/merge_requests/17

gnome-flashback - WIP: Add implementation for GF_PLACEMENT_ALIGN_ICONS_TO_GRID option

Opened: Nov 02
Author: @menschel
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-flashback/-/merge_requests/37

planner - libplanner

Opened: Oct 29 (updated Oct 30)
Author: @ahmed.baizid.0
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/planner/-/merge_requests/19

planner - Desktop Integration

Opened: Oct 29 (updated Oct 30)
Author: @ahmed.baizid.0
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/planner/-/merge_requests/17

planner - Native Language Support

Opened: Oct 29 (updated Oct 30)
Author: @ahmed.baizid.0
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/planner/-/merge_requests/15

planner - POize Spanish User Guide

Opened: Oct 28 (updated Oct 30)
Author: @ahmed.baizid.0
URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/planner/-/merge_requests/10

3 Likes

Only two MRs per person seems like a good idea.

Not sure if I mentioned it already, but I think WIP MRs should be excluded.

FWIW these four MR have been looked at, the contributor has been reached out to, and they are working against another existing MR by a soon to be co-maintainer on planner. I think you can safely exclude these from future posts.

That’s great news. Shall we close the existing MRs in that case?

I don’t think there is a simple answer. If each MR is a simple change and a person submits N requests of simples changes (N>2) what is wrong with this? If a person submits a significant amount of MR such as proposals it is also good. They can attract brains for discussion in the earlier stage. I think this is good for the project.