On 03:31 Wed 08 Feb 2012, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: > [email protected] писал 2012-02-07 23:52: > > Quoting Sébastien Fabbro <[email protected]>: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> We are contemplating the idea of switching the official science > >> overlay > >> to an external repository such as github. Here are some of the > >> advantages we would like to > >> get: > >> 1. easier to contribute > >> 2. specific issue tracker > >> 3. wiki > >> > > Other people have made useful comments already. The only point that I > > think > > is interesting about github is the possibility to clone the overlay > > and have > > pull requests. > > Effectively that means people can contribute without ever getting > > infra > > involved and an external contributor can send a pull request even if > > they are > > not a member of the github science team. > > > > Francois > > Actualy you can send pull request even now =) Its git. See for example > linux kernel related work
Sure, the New Yorker publishes short stories. In my experience this is a huge barrier for first time contributors. I'm seeing this with the offlineimap project which enforces the git-format-patch and mailing list pull-requests/review. There are people who just want to fix three lines in the doc but don't want to get black belts in git-fu. Then sometimes the maintainers won't implement the 3 line change to the doc themselves because they want proper credit for the original contributor, so after ~10 e-mails the original contributor tries git-email and fails to meet the standards. Another couple of e-mails are required do explain sign-off, reply-to headers, ... I'll stop here you get the point. IMHO using github or a self-hosted equivalent will make contributing easier. Clone, commit, and to some web-thingie for the pull-request. Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
