Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
The way I read the request I thought is was more about having an organizational document, not for the sake of getting a submission in, but rather for understanding where help in improving the processes (by code or manual labor) would be appreciated, and what kind of expertise this would entail. I may have been completely misunderstanding Kieren here, but that might be of interest anyway. > 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. Well, we don't really point out helpful resources for that a lot, do we? > Jonas -- David Kastrup
