i agree. i proposed such a guideline on a separate thread. it wasn't too well received. i think camille also made some good points. i would love to establish a guideline of rejecting cleanup patches while fixes and new functions are being added. it is just too distracting to everyone involved.
ben On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't mean to interrupt the love story of this thread, but I'd like to add > a small comment. > > It might not be easy to come up with such a list, but in general, it sounds > like a good idea to have a set of guidelines, accepted by the community, > that we could use to reject contributions. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of > taste, which is difficult to manage when we have tens of people > contributing. Even though it might be virtually impossible to get rid of > taste completely, we need a mechanism that enables us to reject > contributions without feeling guilty about doing a disservice to the > community. After all, I believe one of our key goals is to maintain a > community and to attract valuable contributions, not to push people away > without a reason. Any reason we use to reject contributions should ideally > be supported by the community and should not be unilateral. > > If I'm alone on this thought, then I'm happy to drop it, but otherwise it > would be great to hear some thoughts on how to get something like this > going. I think we already have some guidelines in the documentation, but if > I remember correctly, they are kind of weak with respect to the perspective > I'm laying above. > > -Flavio > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> I also think that Zookeeper has lots of technical debt, partly because >>>> we >>>>> >>>>> didn't get to start with a codebase designed for testing. Paying off >>>> >>>> debt >>>>> >>>>> is always extremely painful. We have a payment due. >>>> >>>> Ted, no disrespect but put your money where you mouth is, start >>>> reviewing patches if you feel strongly. >>> >>> >>> Guilty (mostly) as charged. >>> >>> I have only been able to review a few of the patches. My work schedule >>> is >>> heinous right now. >> >> Totally understand (I'm in the same boat wrt being overloaded). Hope >> you took it in the context I meant it. We can't do hugs through email >> -- raincheck for next time we meet f2f. ;-) >> >>> >>> >>>> So far I've taken the brunt of >>>> doing the reviews from Thomas and the rest of the community is just >>>> getting pissed off by his attitude. >>>> >>> >>> I have also tried to work on this issue. I have met with Thomas in >>> person >>> and provided private coaching (with limited, but non-zero success). I >>> also >>> have privately mediated some misunderstandings. >>> >>> >>>> It doesn't matter what someones contributions might be, if they can't >>>> work with the community. >>>> http://communityovercode.com/over/ >>> >>> >>> Very true. That is why I have tried to work to help Thomas learn how to >>> work with this community. It isn't all about a snapshot in time; people >>> can develop new skills. >>> >> >> That's the thing, so far everyone has been trying (incl Thomas) but we >> are still seeing friction. Perhaps it's just the limited time >> available, pressure to get 3.4.0 out, and non-alignment btw Thomas's >> interests and our current goals? >> >> Patrick > > flavio > junqueira > > research scientist > > [email protected] > direct +34 93-183-8828 > > avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es > phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 > >
