On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:57:09AM +0100, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > > I've recently had a *VERY* bad experience with submitting a patch to > > the Firefox folks. I won't go into details here, but suffice it to > > say that there was an exorbitant amount of politicking involved, and > > frankly, I feel like total crap for even bothering to try and fix a > > bug that is, oh, I dunno, five years old and counting. > > Darcs is relatively free from politics, being a much smaller project > that Firefox; however, we do suffer from a lack of time.
I'll just add to what Eric said that we *try* at darcs to be very friendly and encouraging to newcomers. However, we also try to only accept decent quality code, which sometimes can be discouraging to people new to Haskell. This worked out better when I (and others) had more spare time, as I really enjoy reviewing code and suggesting cleaner alternatives, which works well with new developers who are patient and enjoy learning (which really is the best kind to attract to the project anyhow). Recently, we've mostly been pretty swamped (myself in particular), so the quality of critique has dropped. Eric is doing great, but only reviews patches once a week, which can be frustrating to new developers who want to get something finished quickly, but need help in improving their code. As Eric said, all patches go to the darcs-devel mailing list, including my own. Technically the darcs-unstable maintainer could apply their own patches to the central repository directly (and in some cases they do, and I used to do that all the time), but tradition (begun by igloo) dictates that they first send them to the list like anyone else would do, and wait for replies. And I feel especially obligated to review those patches, as it's pretty close to impossible to effectively review one's own code. So your contribution will go through the same process anyone else's will, which helps a lot to reduce politicking. For new features (or formats), it's best to propose them early, possibly before writing code, but certainly before spending much time, to see if the feature is deemed acceptable. We're very hesitant to add new commands, and pretty hesitant to add new flags, just to keep darcs easy to learn and to use. New formats (e.g. a new darcs replace format) will need discussion, to be sure we won't need to change it again soon, and careful review to make sure the transition is smooth. Among other things, a new format requires learning and using the RepoFormat mechanism (which allows backwards and forwards compatibility, and avoids corruption). Unfortunately, this mechanism, while successfully in place and believed correct, hasn't been widely used, just because we haven't introduced many new formats since _darcs/format has been introduced. > > My question, therefore, is related to, "How *painful* will it > > be for me to contribute back to darcs?" > > I expect it to be relatively smooth sailing. Do check the activity > of the darcs-devel list to get an idea. You might also want to see > when patches get Rejected, or when I ask for resubmission. I'll just add that I attribute much of darcs' success to the lack of pain associated with contributing back--some of which is because we use darcs, but a lot of it is just because we're a friendly crowd (which also attracts friendly developers and motivates them to be friendly). -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
