XSF Discussion - 2024-03-27

  1. Guus

    Daniel, the email text of this morning's update doesn't really reflect the changes. They seem to use the descriptions from the preexisting versioning block. That does not reflect the acceptance/rejection that triggered the mail.

  2. Daniel

    yes I wasn’t sure if reject means I need to add another revision

  3. Daniel

    i looked at the one previous rejected and that didn’t add one

  4. Daniel

    i looked at the one previous rejection and that didn’t add one

  5. Daniel

    and because there is no new revision the tooling added the old changelog

  6. Daniel

    I guess if this happens again i'll just add a new version for the rejection

  7. Guus

    At least the subject line was correct.

  8. Daniel

    when moving to stable we obviously have new revision because we are going to 1.0 anyway

  9. Daniel

    but in case of rejection the case wasn’t clear to me

  10. Guus

    That, or somehow get the tooling to act differently.

  11. Guus

    It's probably a rare enough case to not worry about it too much

  12. Guus

    Maybe every status change, even rejection, warrants a new version? I dunno. Seems like the easiest workaround.

  13. Daniel

    yes that’s what I’m propably going to do

  14. Daniel

    don’t want to touch the tooling

  15. Guus

    Any Chinese speakers here? I've just added the first job listing that's partially in Chinese - wanted to make sure it made sense: https://xmpp.work/job/%e9%ab%98%e7%ba%a7xmpp%e6%9c%8d%e5%8a%a1%e5%99%a8%e5%bc%80%e5%8f%91%e5%b7%a5%e7%a8%8b%e5%b8%88/

  16. Guus

    As an aside: has the XSF ever tried to partner up with Zoom, maybe as a sponsor or something?

  17. Guus

    Might be an opportunity there

  18. MattJ

    Guus: I believe stpeter knows people there, I think he was going to reach out

  19. Guus