Jason Bassford wrote:
<snip>
> In fact, I think you may have missed the point of the discussion.
> It hasn't been about what you should be doing but what should be done
> in general. This is, or should have been, a "high level" discussion
> on strategy and principles, not about who, specifically, should be
> doing what.
That is not at all what this discussion has been about. This discussion
has been about a specific request made of me by Peter Lairo. He
requested that I create a keyword for Bugzilla called *LowRiskHighReward*.
I said no to that request so he did what he does with any bug that he is
unhappy about, he started a newsgroup discussion to try to drum up
support for his position. The support didn't materialize so his request
has morphed into something more general.
If he wants to lead an effort to help point new contributors to his list
of pet bugs I'm not going to stop him but I'm not going to help him
either. If you or others here want to help Peter get more people
looking at his bugs that's also fine with me but don't confuse that with
some "making contributing to Mozilla easier" effort.
No list of bugs alone is going to make contributing code fixes to
Mozilla any easier, especially a list of bugs that is constructed by
people who admit they can't really judge how hard it would be to fix any
of those particular bugs. I'd argue that a more useful list of bugs
would be a handful of Fixed bugs which have very clear descriptions of
the fixing process recorded in the bug. If Peter wanted to go through
the 31,074 Fixed bugs and pick out a few choice examples from different
areas of the project, bugs that in their fixing demonstrated a clear
systematic investigation and solving of the problem, and create a
buglist from that I'd see what I could do about getting that list posted
to a prominent location for new contributors to look over and get some
idea of how our process and code works.
--Asa
