On 10/17/13 4:01 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 06:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Our project has a serious, chronic problem with giving new
>> patch-submitters a bad experience, and this patch is a good example of
>> that. The ultimate result is that people go off to contribute to other
>> projects where submissions are easier and the rules for what gets
>> accepted are relatively transparent.
>
> That may be true, but it depends on the contributor. I would much
> rather be told that my contribution is not up to snuff than what
> happened on another project I recently tried to contribute to for the
> first time.
>
> A parser refactoring broke my code. I reported it and it was promptly
> fixed. When the fix came up for review, I said it needed a regression
> test to prevent it from happening again and I was told by the author
> that such a test would be "flimsy" and it went on to be committed (by
> that same guy) without one. I'm undecided whether I'll be contributing
> there any further.
>
> The rigor here makes me want to try and try again.
ISTM the big issue with new contributors is our methodology is rather different from most other projects, and if you
don'tunderstand that you're likely to end up with negativity towards contributing here. Specifically:
- We place a heavy, HEAVY emphasis on discussion, to the point that you can easily spend 50x more time on discussing a
featureover implementing it.
- We place a very heavy emphasis on "quality", be that testing, not breaking backwards compatability, etc, etc.
I agree with Vik; I think the way we develop is a feature and not a bug. But I also think we need to do everything we
canto enlighten new contributors so they don't walk away with a bad taste in their mouth.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
