On 11/20/19 22:50, Pete Batard wrote: > [...] > > Which is why I am trying to invite them to consider one aspect that I > believe is often overlooked: trying to treat time as the 3d most > valuable resource a project needs to concern itself with (end-user > experience being first and overall code/software quality second), and > applying flexibility to what some might be a bit too eager to treat as > non-negotiable rules as a result of that. Rules should be made to serve > and foster those resources rather than the opposite.
Contribution rules are already made to prioritize time and effort -- *maintainer* time and effort. - There are fewer maintainers than contributors. - Maintainers tend to stick around for long, contributors may or may not (it varies). - Maintainers generally take more responsibility for the codebase, as a whole, than contributors do. - In most cases, reading code is more difficult than writing code. All of the above turn maintainership and patch review into a permanent bottleneck at the project level. Unclogging that bottleneck is what project rules prioritize. Nobody doubts that strict contribution rules create bottlenecks on the contributor side. That's the lesser wrong. "Moving fast" leads to regressions. In a halfway mature project, which users have grown to rely on, regressions destroy end-user experience (which you put as first priority). Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#51008): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/51008 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/57792459/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
