I wouldn't want to sound negative but #7153 <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/7153> links to #7206 <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/7206> which refers to #7959 <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/7959>, which is still in discussion: hardly an "intro issue". Also #11540 <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/11540> is still undecided. And #8536 <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8536>. May I ask what kind of decisions can a novice take on these? It would help if a clearer statement was made for the resolution of the issue. Thanks, michele
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Isaiah Norton <[email protected]> wrote: > There are now 13 issues with the "intro issue" label. I would be > interested in any comments on how people feel about the calibration of > these. > > I have to say that after looking through a large fraction of the open > issue list (titles), I basically agree with Stefan's assessment in the > other thread that the truly low-hanging fruit gets dealt with pretty > quickly. In part this is because we have developed a reflexive response of > saying "want to submit a pull request?" when such an issue is submitted -- > which usually does elicit a PR from the submitter or someone else in fairly > short order. > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Tamas Papp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am a Julia newbie, currently diving into the internals so that I can >> contribute later. Many design features of Julia are novel, and in flux, >> which makes it harder to contibute. Even when an issue seems simple, I >> am always concerned that there are ramifications I don't yet >> understand. Identifying issues which don't require such a deep >> understanding of Julia would be great. >> >> So I would find Tim's suggested interpretation of the "newbie" label >> practical and useful. >> >> Best, >> >> Tamas >> >> On Fri, May 08 2015, Tim Holy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > While I agree that "easy" is not always easy to define, I also think >> that there >> > is real merit in flagging issues that should not require a deep dive >> into >> > internals. For many first-time contributors, just learning git and >> GitHub is >> > quite a barrier in itself (it was for me). A one-line fix---like adding >> a >> > missing method---is the perfect warmup exercise. To a potential >> contributor, >> > s/he presumably has better access to "what am I good at?" than to "what >> issues >> > will not require three days of work even by someone with expertise in >> Julia's >> > innards?" >> > >> > --Tim >> > >> > On Friday, May 08, 2015 10:33:48 AM Mike Innes wrote: >> >> Part of the issue is figuring out what "Newbie" means. New to >> programming? >> >> Experienced in programming, but new to Julia? Experienced in Julia, >> but new >> >> to Base? New to open source? Arguably all of these are valid targets, >> but >> >> mixing them together ends up not being that helpful since people still >> have >> >> to sort through them. >> >> >> >> I agree with what Tomas has said about writing packages. I can >> definitely >> >> understand people wanting to contribute to Base, but if you just want >> to >> >> get some code out there and/or get a taste of the process contributing >> to >> >> packages will be much quicker and easier. >> >> >> >> The great thing about Julia's early stage is that (a) it's really easy >> to >> >> find holes in functionality and (b) if you fill those holes, chance are >> >> you'll have "the package" for that functionality, and people are >> actually >> >> going to use it. On top of that, you're much more likely to be >> interested >> >> in the work. That's a really great opportunity IMO. >> >> >> >> It's easy enough to pick something you're interested in and, depending >> on >> >> your level of confidence, start from scratch, port it from another >> >> language, experiment, whatever. As one option, the web stack is >> >> particularly ripe for development right now. (Which is a polite way of >> >> saying that there isn't much of one.) >> >> >> >> On 8 May 2015 at 07:03, Tomas Lycken <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I just want to put some emphasis on what Scott hinted at: if you >> want to >> >> > contribute to Julia, start with figuring out what *you* know a little >> >> > about. >> >> > >> >> > Sometimes there's code in base that does some of those things, but >> not all >> >> > of them, and/or not as well as you know how to. >> >> > >> >> > Sometimes there's not a place in base for your problem domain, but >> I've >> >> > found that contributing to a package (or building a new one) is just >> as >> >> > good a way to get started writing some Julia code. And chances are >> pretty >> >> > high that after a while you stumble upon something in base that needs >> >> > improvement for your package development to be as easy as possible - >> >> > voila! >> >> > We've found someplace in base for you to contribute :) >> >> > >> >> > Bottom line is, it's usually pretty easy to write Julia code as long >> as >> >> > you know what the code should do - the hard part is finding >> something that >> >> > you know how to do (and where to put the code that does it). >> >> > >> >> > // T >> >> >
