On 12 February 2013 23:55, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and > >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple > >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. > >> > >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing > >> code on a new page: > >> > >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html > >> > >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. > >> > > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large > > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: > > > > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as > a > > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can > > achieve the best result". > > > > Maybe there is a better of way of phrasing this, but we really don't > want code dumps. In other words, we're not interested in having a new > large body of code to maintain. A large code base requires developers > to maintain it. If it is a code dump then this dilutes our attention > on the existing code base. So new large contributions really need to > come along with developers to help maintain the code. > I understand you better now, and agree. Someone dumping 100.000 lines on our doorstep and disapearing is not an attractive situation.
Just a side remark, I thought that was pretty much what happened with symphony, and now pick pieces and integrate. Actually I think your wording above, it much better...."if you come with a large chunk of code, we need you as well" :-) > > > > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small > code > > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a > > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has > > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to > talk. > > > > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is > > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). > > > > Maybe I need to define "code dump" then. I don't think what you are > doing is "code dump", It is large, but I assume that you don't just > contribute it and disappear. > Maybe it is really wording, I dont like negative wording on a page where we try to welcome people. But I agree to the idea of taken over a large chunk of code, requires the commitment of the developer as well. > > So help integrating is one part. For a bug fix is a smaller > enhancement, maybe that is all we need. But suppose someone wants to > contribute something large, like a complete new application as part of > the suite? > > Let's see if we agree on that general idea. If so I can find a > clearer way of expressing it. > 1) bug fixes, small things, you current wording is quite ok. 2) bigger things, needs documentation and commitment to help with integration 3) large things (your 100.000 lines) needs ongoing commitment from the developers, otherwise we cannot maintain it. I know that is not the correct wording, but I hope we can agree of the idea...and then please positive wording :-) Have a nice day. Jan I. Ps. I dont intent to disapear, this is way too much fun. > > -Rob > > > rgds > > Jan I. > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Rob > >> >
