On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Alex Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm only new here but I agree with this. > > I recently signed the CLA in my personal capacity without any discussion > with company lawyers (I don't think I need their permission to sign as > myself do I?) and I got myself across the Puppet Labs development processes. > I can understand why some people would find this a lot to learn just to > submit a patch but I can also see why Puppet Labs would expect people who > plan to make regular code submissions to follow the same processes as > everyone else. I would imagine that it would be even more work for the > Puppet Labs developers if everyone isn't following the same process and thus > the real problem - which I think is allowing there to be a backlog of pull > requests - would probably be exacerbated. >
Yeah, I was skeptical of all of these little rules around how to submit commits and pull requests when I started, but I've come to notice over time that they help us a lot in understanding changes and tracing things back to reasons. If I could keep all of the code and interactions in my head, it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue, but with the number of things in puppet that interact we almost always seem to get knock-on effects and we need to understand what a change was trying to achieve so that when it turns out later that we need to change things, we understand what will be affected. > I think it's fairly obvious though that if pull requests don't get looked at > in a reasonable time frame then people just won't bother making them in the > future. And some will get sufficiently annoyed that they'll use Chef or > something other than Puppet, if they've got bugs that they've had to fix, > and they feel no one can even be bothered reviewing them. > > I think Andy's idea of making public the team's priorities is also a great > idea - although external contributors may find that, almost by definition, > their personal interests may not align with Puppet Labs. External > contributors are likely to be contributing in the first place because they > have a very specific need that isn't otherwise likely to be looked at by > Puppet Labs. And that's my case of course - fixing puppet & facter for > versions of commercial Unix that you guys don't have access to that I need > to make it work on. > This brings up something that I'd like to figure out how to get going: platform maintainers. As you say, we don't have access to all of this stuff, nor do we have the manpower to stay on top of all of it. Can we get a bunch of people who own puppet's core support for various platforms? Would anyone be interested in signing up for that? > So I vote strongly for insisting that no internal Puppet Labs priorities can > be allowed to divert the person assigned to looking at pull requests away > from this greater priority. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Developers" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-dev/-/quhkDbVAk0sJ. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
