-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 I'm working with PR for more than 1,5 years. I saw maybe once that a person completely lost his interest.
On 5 May 2016 12:13:45 GMT+03:00, zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com> wrote: >This paragraph in the article sums the problem pretty much: > >> What’s even more frustrating is that even though Jane provides >feedback >quickly, often contributors lose interest and/or forget about taking >their >Pull Requests the final step after initially contributing them. The >apparent triviality of the changes Jane’s asking for (somewhat >perversely) >contributes to that loss of interest, since it just feels like >nit-picking >when she’s asking for the fifth overlooked stylistic change. > >Especially if the only motivation is to keep the git history pretty, it >doesn't play any functional role. I agree that the person merging could >also amend the commits but then it just shifts the burden to this group >of >people. Wouldn't we rather move forward and get even more code merged ? > >On Wed, 4 May 2016 at 13:09 Graham Christensen <gra...@grahamc.com> >wrote: > >> 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCgAtJhxBcnNlbml5IFNlcm9rYSA8YXJzLnNlcm9rYUBnbWFpbC5jb20+ BQJXKxGeAAoJEMTxMd9/e0DjfU8IAMJO1N2RFQ7GQRO3JxBPqOZB8yqkTOafoVry H0BHYjnCRIaLER1s6MFO6+ELf0ynhZ+aaOJcHqyV5xR5KOegeYmfk33/3BDIPZq0 g+Hc0YfiKzq23R6PeHLm2DNE5XpMA1kzmqOeH3tEprcURhu4tgTkcaIXMxg/v/Bq jQKvdvsfDQJaoWKFUvGFtB0SgC7pJZ7gVEmF8EJJWDrVBNBOEZ6ncp49ewAuSPyD bv9QtWvek1a2RKqso6pYMWSpu3nPepsWF89kHRlPs0KCBZjhel+DZODaBHzd+Sk3 MeFXgLK7bBIh5A58XVYCQleaZaZB8QkHBqgoKAsr9lFioDqPs8c= =uZUq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev