[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>>Let's use the definition of the "mail6" keyword and expand it to include
>>all Mozilla components (not just mail). The name of the morphed keyword
>>doesn't have to be what I suggested, it could be something else. The
>>description could include cautionary notes: e.g., "seems easy to fix,
>>but could not be after a closer look. If so, please then remove the KW."
>>or whatever we need to get this moving.
>>
>I (and others) have exactly the same issues with "mail6" as we would with
>your proposed keyword(s).
>
It seems rthat keywords are unpopular in general - OK then.
>>PS. Ian, maybe you could make a suggestion that I could ridicule without
>>seriously considering its merits :(
>>
>If the problem you are trying to solve is "how do we get more people
>contributing good quality code" then the answer is for these potential
>people to do exactly what almost every other contributor has done: Start
>off by helping with the QA and bug triage of an area that the new
>contributor is interested in until the new contributor is familiar with
>the bugs in that area, and then let the new contributor start reading the
>source code and poking at it until they are familiar with that too.
>
>Our codebase is *huge*. There is no way someone can jump in, fix a bug,
>and jump out without spending DAYS if not WEEKS or MONTHS studying the
>project. I'm sorry, it just can't be done. Those that have tried to fix
>bugs without knowing the code well enough have quickly found that what
>they thought was "low risk" was instead to become a smoketest blocker;
>those that have submitted patches without learning the bugs in an area
>have quickly been corrected by our reviewers and super reviewers.
>
>To contribute to a project this big requires time. A lot of time. This is
>just a fact of life.
>
>If you really want to help, what we need is documentation, to make the
>learning curve easier. Keywords are not going to help.
>
Proof of realisazion that one has responded sub-optimal is better than
any apology - and you have provided ample proof - Thank You. And thank
you for the well thought out explanation of your view on this.
I'm still not convinced that a "visionary" approach of keeping the
current system, but trying new approaches (keywords in conjunction with
a good "Starter" page is still not also worth a try.
>>PPS. Ian, I am sooo glad you found a situation where this keyword might
>>not apply. "The exception confirms the rule."
>>
>I have yet to find a situation where your keyword *does* apply.
>
Really? or whas that defensive rhetoric? What about bugs that only
require editing text (e.g. 123kb to 123 kb - add a space)?
>>PPPS. Insults are the arguments of those who have no arguments. (J.J.
>>Rousseau, schw.-frz. Phil., 1712-1778)
>>
>I hope you find this post more useful then.
>
Yes I do, thank you :)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
