8:32 p.m.
On 02/27/2014 12:39 PM, Shu Ming wrote:
2014/2/27 21:47, Paulo Ricardo Paz Vital:
> Ming,
>
> Your patch solves only the DebugReports problem, while Leonardo's patch
> solves any difference between what UI expects and backend sets.
I was planing to send screenshot patch later after all of us agree
with the method to fix DebugReports, anyway this is another issue not
directly linked to my point. My point was that:
1) when one people already worked on something, the later one should
communicate with the former one to avoid duplicate effort
Sorry, Ming, I
didn't see your patch in the mailing list before I sent
mine. I apologize for that.
2) The patch should have some soaking time to be merged, say 24
hours,
and people in other timezone can get an opportunity to review it.
To be honest, I
think this is not necessary. If we are talking about a
new feature or a complex bug fix, I agree with you. But this is a fairly
simple patch that directly solves a regression that was exposed by
aother modification in late January. I have already discussed this in a
scrum meeting: I think that simple patches like this one should not
necessarily have a complete review process. Having to have a formal
review process for every small patch is just a way to overload the
contributors and make the project slower. But, anyway, I think this is a
good topic for discussion on the next scrum meeting.
>
> In addition, IMO the point you mentioned about not expose host file
> system to the front is the root cause of this bug. Many UI paths were
> broken because the paths set up by backend was not used or followed.
In most cases ,we should use relative path to hide the host file
systems from the front users.
The patch is not exposing anything to the front
users. This path mapping
is used internally by Cherrypy and never exposed in the UI. So I didn't
get your point here. If someone really wants to know the real paths,
well, this is an open source project: they will be able to see the
source and figure out the paths in the server anyway, regardless how
they are typed in the source code.
When Kimchi is installed through RPM, we are distributing files in
various directories, just following what is described in the unix file
system standard (to the best of my knowledge). Hence, using absolute
paths is mandatory as there is no common path root shared between all
files used by Kimchi.
If you don't think this is the case, feel free to send a patch improving
the patch I sent before.
Best regards,
Leonardo Garcia
Only if it must, the absolute path can be used. I don't like
the
idea to change all the relative static path to absolute ones. IMO, we
can only use absolute path for the debugreport and screenshot path.
Even better, we can take more effort to re-organize the path to have a
reasonable root for all of the path including debugreport and
screenshot paths.
>
> Best regards,