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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar). 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
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
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.