On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:09:39 +0800 konsolebox <konsole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:53 PM, james <gar...@verizon.net> wrote: > > The grandiose-ness you propose should only come upon graduating from proxy > > school, imho. > > user-->strong-users-->proxy-->dev pathway. > > Pedantic, bureaucratic, procedure-oriented, monolithic, restrictive. > Too conservative. > > What matters is the contribution, and the result. If you don't like > how a user makes a contribution, don't accept the pull request, or > don't merge his package. Simple. If you think that could turn out to > be just a waste of time for them, help them correct their issues; add > some documentations to enlighten them and give warnings about wrong > practices so they don't blame anyone, and so they can decide whether > they would want to contribute or not given the rules presented; but, > _don't_ make the steps mandatory. Don't make contributions > restrictive. You're contradicting yourself. How can improving/review of pull request be non-mandatory, if otherwise we are to reject it? Of course, it all depends on how you define 'mandatory'. It's not like anybody forces you to do something, you know. Sure, it may seem like we expect people to fix all the tiny issues with pull requests but that's just a default profile we're assuming. Many of the people actually *want* to do that. If you don't, you can tell us straight ahead and we won't waste our time asking you to. I'm also unhappy when a pull request is left open for two weeks because we asked user to do a simple change, and he doesn't reply. I could've fixed it myself faster but then the user would lose his chance to do it. And the worst thing, I don't even know if he wants to! > We do already allow people to send pull requests to > Gentoo portage's repo in Github, but it seems like they generally only > allow patches that fix current packages, not new features or new > packages. That's not true. The rules for pull requests are pretty much the same as for bugs. If a fix or enhancement makes sense, the maintainer can approve it or not. Don't expect that people are going to agree with you, or consider your contribution more correct just because you provided a patch or a pull request. And don't expect the developer to take long-term responsibility for changes he doesn't understand, use or approve. As for new packages, the rules are simple -- someone has to maintain them. Gentoo is not the kind of zero-maintenance distro where an ebuild written once is good forever. With the very limited manpower Gentoo has, don't expect people to just take some random package you use and maintain it for you if they don't even have any clue what it does. If you are not going to maintain your contribution, we can't guarantee it will be accepted. I'm certainly not interested in having to worry about 20 more maintainer-needed packages next month because someone contributed an ebuild that seemed good enough. In this case, less is better than more. A really bad thing is to provide something new just to have it removed (or became useless) in a month or so. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpKi2xKv6zjw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
