I've found this post insightful (disregard the title) about how to not be too much of a stickler with new committers: https://blog.spreedly.com/2014/06/24/merge-pull-request-considered-harmful/
Graham > On May 4, 2016, at 6:26 AM, zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com> wrote: > > Each contributor has his own motivations and every round were we provide > feedback is another one where we might lose the contributor. He might run out > of energy, or have moved onto other things. > > Even after improving the CONTRIBUTING.md, naming of commits is still a really > big friction to getting valid code into nixpkgs. I'm talking of how commits > should be named after a patter like "package: init at x.y.z" or "package: > a.b.c -> x.y.z". > > I must admit I don't really know the motivations behind this rule. All I can > think of it that we could theoretically build some tooling and get pretty > cool stats out of it. And that spelunking git history becomes a tiny bit > easier. > > Given all that I think we should reconsider that rule. In my opinion if a > contributor submits valid nix code that is useful to the project we should > just be able to merge it and move forward. For me it's more important than > the commit naming rule. > > Opinions ? > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
