[ haven't seen that yet because I wasn't CCed ] Kamesh Jayachandran wrote on Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 20:12:43 +0530: > On 03/02/2011 07:47 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >Bert Huijben wrote on Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:14:24 +0100: > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Arwin Arni [mailto:ar...@collab.net] > >>>Please review this and share your thoughts. > >>I don't think this is the way we should implement this. > >Which is precisely why one should contact the mailing list BEFORE > >writing a patch. Especially a large/long patch such as this one. > > Daniel, > > Let me share *my* concern here in proposing a idea to any *new* community. > > I would be happy to propose an idea where I lack direction and have > a ambiguity in implementation. > > I would be happy to post a patch if idea is simpler enough which is > the case here. > > Yes one can declare in advance what they wish to work on, But this > declaration has a negative side effect of stigma if the idea is not > complete in implementation especially this stigma is too much for a > newcomer. >
Yep. I've been a newcomer once and I remember the feeling you're referring to. But on the other hand: showing up with a patch that's larger (in line count and byte count) than many feature branches is a Don't Do That. Practically? If one wants to look into a problem, but isn't ready for the commitment of emailing dev@ yet... I suppose the solutions fall into three categories: email dev@ (but without stating "I promise to write a patch"), email #svn-dev, email a committer. > As a newcomer I would post a working patch than start a > discussion(of course only if the idea is straightforward) which is > often open-ended and confuses/discourages the new-comer if he is > *not* that serious about the feature he proposes. > That's a separate problem --- patch reviews shouldn't scare off the patch contributors. > > With regards > Kamesh Jayachandran > > > > > > > >
