Am Montag, 11. Juni 2018 15:48:00 UTC+2 schrieb vitalije:

 Since March 2018, when it was declared that only Edward should commit to 
> the master brunch, no contribution is counted for any other developer in 
> leo-editor team.

This is not true. The individual commits of every developer are still 
existing in the history and count for git-points. A commit to a branch does 
not rewrite previous commits, does not change names and 
contribution-history. Though, this is of course only valid if the developer 
actually commited himself to git(hub), and did not just send edward a patch 
of code to let him commit it. But every time you commit something to github 
and merge it to some branch, your name will appear in that branch. If 
someone then merge this branch into some other branch, your name still 
remains as it was before.

In git, a branch is basically a collection of commits, similar to an 
outline. A new branch is just a clone of a previous branch/outline with a 
new commit/root-element. Thus, everytime Edward merges the develop-branch 
to master, he only clones references of your new commits from develop to 
master, and adds a new commit of his own about those merge. At least that's 
the normal way this things go. There are ways to manipulate commit-history, 
but I don't think Edward is willing using such black magic.

 He is eager to accept every contribution but only to the some extent. If 
> the contribution is rather small it is going to be welcomed and accepted 
> without too much noise. However, I’ve got the impression that if the 
> contribution is above some limit, if it makes Leo much better in some area, 
> then it won’t be accepted as such.

To be fair, this is exactly the job of the project-manager. He must ensure 
that the code works and everthing follows whatever goal for the project 
exists. It actually is his job to decline everything that is to complex to 
be understandable on a first peek, because it can break the software, or 
introduce nasty bugs or even misusage. I know for the eager developer this 
can be hard, and I too think Edward has much to learn. But I think the 
biggest problem is not so much the project itself, but the codebase and 
general culture. From my impression, the Leo Editor is a case of a 
Cathedral instead of an open Bazaar (see On surface 
it's open source, but the source if unneccessary complicated and unhealthy 
thighly integrated, while still controlled by one single instance of 
authority. Access is hard, relevant contribution even harder. This has 
advantages, but also disadvantages. It's everyones choice which one you 

 I guess not many developers would be ready to accept that kind of 
> treatment.

Not really. A good developer should accept that the project has priority 
and that his own work has shortcomings too. If your code is rejected, then 
you should figure out why. Maybe it's the explenation, or the lack of test, 
or your code has some hidden sideeffects, or really is just bad. 
Team-Projects are less about code, and more about people and their 
characters and experiences. You need to learn to understand each other to 
create good results. Working against each other is not helpful. Though, I 
admit Edward isn't the easiest pal in that regard. And the horribled close 
design of Leos architecture isn't very helpful to loosen it.

 It would be much nicer though if Edward were willing to accept all 
> contributions even when he can’t fully grasp them at once

There is a simply solution: if something is complex, make so many unit- and 
system-tests that they can cover the parts which are hard to understand. 
For a reviewer to do good work, he MUST understand the code completly, or 
have someone or something he can trust enough to accept their judgement. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to