Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 21:24 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: > Hi again, Graham: > > More concretely… Where can I go, in the CG or elsewhere, to find something > that looks like this: > > Job: Patch Formatter > Tasks: Ensure that a submitted patch conforms to the Lilypond code standards > (found <here> and <here> and <here>). > Requirements: a text editor; working knowledge of the programming language(s) > used in a given patch (possibilities: C++, Scheme, python). > Estimated Time Commitment: 5 minutes (per average patch), currently an > average of 7 patches per week > References & Links: <Lilypond code style guide here>, <good auto-formatting > tools here>, etc. > Receives From: Patch Submitter or Patch Reviewer > Passes To: Patch Reviewer
My thoughts: Formalizing to that degree hurts an open source project instead of helping. It gives new contributors a lot more to understand to even start and decreases efficiency for developers, as every micro- managing does in day jobs. Personally I don't want to see tens of jobs that I all have to memorize in order to contribute. I'm open to reconsider the current description of jobs, adapt if necessary, and add new jobs if really needed - but certainly not a "Patch Formatter", that's part of the review process which is no job, every developer should participate. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
