On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 08:02:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The PR in question:
It took me a while to find it, because you were using a
pseudonym that I did not recognize. There are a number of
frequent contributors to D using pseudonyms, and all have this
issue with varying degrees.
This is a fair point in its own right, but it's completely
orthogonal to the issue Nick is complaining about -- which is
that after some initial interest and feedback, the PR just got
left alone with no decision to accept or reject it, and no
indication of why.
That's really a very unpleasant situation to face, regardless of
whether the contributor in question is a well-known name or some
complete anonymous stranger. I have a PR of my own that's been
in this situation for (only!) a month now, and it's distinctly
frustrating, particularly because it was a contribution that
Andrei specifically called for on these forums:
(... Andrei's request:
Contrast this with the experience I had the one time I submitted
a (tiny, trivial) patch to rust: immediately after submitting the
PR I got a message from their 'highfive' robot that included:
* a friendly thank you for the PR;
* the GitHub ID of a contact who I could expect to be taking
for the PR, who was also assigned as a reviewer;
* some helpful notes on how to add changes to the PR if
* a link to the contributor guidelines.
By contrast with a Phobos PR it's not clear who to contact if
review or decision-making is not forthcoming.
There's clearly in part a scaling problem here (in terms of how
many people are available in general, and in terms of how many
people have expertise on particular parts of the library) but it
also feels like a few simple things (like making sure every PR
author is given a reliable contact or two who they can feel
entitled to chase up) could make a big difference.