Bonjour Peter, Le Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:28:44 +0200, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi, > > Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > > > This doesn't sound very encouraging for the project in general. :-( > > > > > > It's essentially the contributor's task to make it effortless for > > > maintainers to accept contributions. > > > > Maybe not effortless but as easy as reasonable, certainly. > > Yes effortless. Remember that maintainer time is a limited resource. "Effortless" is an ideal. > > Here, IIUC, the main factor is the time needed to analyze the patch(es). > > Right, good review always takes time, but when a patch is less than > ideal then review requires a lot *more* time from the maintainer - > the limited resource. This is unacceptable, not because maintainers > hate non-ideal contributions, but because it is impossible for > maintainers to spend so much time on overhead. > > > > OTOH, it should not be burdensome to contribute. > > I think that's a little bit too naive. When someone wants to > contribute something and do it well they have to accept quite a lot > of responsibility if they want to maximize the chances of their > contribution being included into the project. Over the years I've > seen countless developers who can do this pretty effortlessly, and > I've also seen many developers who can not get a simple patch into > acceptable form even after ten rounds of feedback. Since maintainers > are not able to go back and forth with contributors ad infinitum the > responsibility and yes burden for contribution really lies with the > contributor. > > I agree with you that projects should not raise unneccessary > barriers for contributions, here some projects are better, some worse. Unnecessary barriers are my point, really -- and just like a maintainer's time should not be wasted, so should not a contributor's. After all, without the contributor, the maintainer would have to patch to review and apply. > > Ok, that's anecdotal, but still: I've tried to register to the OpenOCD > > Gerrit, and gave up for now because it wants me to register through a > > GitHub, Google, Launchpad, or Yahoo! account, or through Open ID, and > > did not leave me any visible option to just register with the e-mail > > and password of my choice. *That*, for instance, is a burden, as these > > accounts are not related to, an not needed for, contributing to OpenOCD. > > Gerrit is used by many different projects, it is a very valuable tool > and contributors only need a single OpenID in order to contribute to > all of those projects. I'm happy to create an OpenID account on my > OpenID server for you if you want, please email me off-list in that > case. (see below) > > IMO, the amount of unrelated-to-OpenOCD effort that a contributor needs > > to endure in order to submit a patch should be limited to providing a > > verified e-mail address to Gerrit. > > Gerrit does not support that mode of operation. Feel free to send > patches to the Gerrit project to extend it, so that it does. > > But please think hard about how Gerrit has outsourced the entire > authentication problem by relying on OpenID before you write > something up. Please also write contribute such a patch to Gerrit > only with strong operational experience from "verified email" > schemes, so that your patch already tackles the important problems > involved. OpenID is only the *default* mode of authentication with Gerrit. LDAP with a local server is another possible mode, that allows registering a local account -- and I suspect that's what Motorola was doing back in 2012 when I still worked there and used Gerrit without having any OpenID involved at all. And I still consider that if authenticating me by the fact that I can receive mail on the address I've given is good enough for U-Boot or Linux, then it is good enough for just about any project. Granted, that rules out single sign-on (unless you set up a shared LDAP server, I imagine) but I personally don't care for SSO. Oh well, then. OpenID is required for OpenOCD, and an account somewhere unrelated is required for OpenID. And since I don't want to use any existing account I have (as they are aleady used for something else), I will have to waste time and resources and create a new one, preferably at a provider which I'm not using yet. :/ However I am certainly not willing to add to any individual's burden just for the, er, pleasure of getting an OpenID for OpenOCD use, so I thank you very much for your proposal to give me one on you own server, but I'l go with some mainstream provider. > > > That can be really difficult if contributions touch on complex issues. > > > > Since the main issue seems to be a lack of "maintainer time", > > Maybe I should have written "issues in the code" to be more clear. That was clear; and precisely, complex patches require more maintainer time. > > maybe a solution could be topic-specific branches (or possibly repos), > .. > > not having registered on the OpenOCD Gerrit yet .. > > I have no idea .. > > if there are topic branches in Gerrit already that just don't show > > up in a git clone > > Gerrit does support branches, and in Gerrit you can even think of > every single pushed commit as a branch. > > The fact that anyone can maintain their own branch in the OpenOCD > Gerrit is one of its advantages. From my Motorola experience, I do know Gerrit supports branches :) -- I meant whether gerrit branches were used in the OpenOCD project, and looking at http://openocd.zylin.com/#/admin/projects/openocd,branches did not hint that they actually were, nor do they appear in a git clone. So either branches can be created in OpenOCD but none exist at the moment, or branches do exist in OpenOCD and non-gerrit-registered OpenOCD users like me cannot see them. Which is which? > //Peter Amicalement, -- Albert. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
