1 |
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:09:39 +0800 |
3 |
> konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:53 PM, james <garftd@×××××××.net> wrote: |
6 |
>> > The grandiose-ness you propose should only come upon graduating from proxy school, imho. |
7 |
>> > user-->strong-users-->proxy-->dev pathway. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Pedantic, bureaucratic, procedure-oriented, monolithic, restrictive. |
10 |
>> Too conservative. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> What matters is the contribution, and the result. If you don't like |
13 |
>> how a user makes a contribution, don't accept the pull request, or |
14 |
>> don't merge his package. Simple. If you think that could turn out to |
15 |
>> be just a waste of time for them, help them correct their issues; add |
16 |
>> some documentations to enlighten them and give warnings about wrong |
17 |
>> practices so they don't blame anyone, and so they can decide whether |
18 |
>> they would want to contribute or not given the rules presented; but, |
19 |
>> _don't_ make the steps mandatory. Don't make contributions |
20 |
>> restrictive. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> You're contradicting yourself. How can improving/review of pull request |
23 |
> be non-mandatory, if otherwise we are to reject it? Of course, it all |
24 |
> depends on how you define 'mandatory'. It's not like anybody forces you |
25 |
> to do something, you know. |
26 |
|
27 |
No, you just misinterpret. You can review pull requests. You can |
28 |
reject stuff, but don't reject them just because some laid-out steps |
29 |
in the documentation has not been followed. Some may not be |
30 |
completely necessary. I'm implying that these "academic" steps may |
31 |
not be completely helpful at all times, and making us follow these |
32 |
things only make making a contribution stiff and restrictive. |
33 |
|
34 |
I'm mainly referring to the strict user-->strong-users-->proxy-->dev |
35 |
pathway that James is encouraging, where it seems like you have to |
36 |
become a proxy developer first (or maybe, prove yourself first; gain |
37 |
first some trust), before you are acknowledged to be able to |
38 |
contribute in a manner that Alexander Berntsen has been suggesting. |
39 |
|
40 |
These stuff imply unnecessary old-fashioned restrictions that aren't |
41 |
"necessarily" helpful to security. It doesn't help encourage users to |
42 |
become active. |
43 |
|
44 |
To make it clear, I'm mostly talking about users who would want to |
45 |
contribute, but doesn't necessarily take pledge on the responsibility |
46 |
of maintaining a package. And isn't that what we are mostly talking |
47 |
about? If we also talk about maintenance-ship, don't we already have |
48 |
the proxy maintainer for that position? |
49 |
|
50 |
> Sure, it may seem like we expect people to fix all the tiny issues with |
51 |
> pull requests but that's just a default profile we're assuming. Many of |
52 |
> the people actually *want* to do that. If you don't, you can tell us |
53 |
> straight ahead and we won't waste our time asking you to. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> I'm also unhappy when a pull request is left open for two weeks because |
56 |
> we asked user to do a simple change, and he doesn't reply. I could've |
57 |
> fixed it myself faster but then the user would lose his chance to do |
58 |
> it. And the worst thing, I don't even know if he wants to! |
59 |
|
60 |
There's nothing I say against that. |
61 |
|
62 |
>> We do already allow people to send pull requests to |
63 |
>> Gentoo portage's repo in Github, but it seems like they generally only |
64 |
>> allow patches that fix current packages, not new features or new |
65 |
>> packages. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> That's not true. The rules for pull requests are pretty much the same |
68 |
> as for bugs. |
69 |
|
70 |
That's great if that's really the case, but a more transparent, less |
71 |
restrictive, and more dynamic system that could attract casual |
72 |
contributors would be better. Something like a web service where |
73 |
their work would be officially indexed so everyone could easily find |
74 |
it, not just the current developers of the current tree snapshot |
75 |
they're trying to push their work to, who may reject it, if it was |
76 |
intended to be pushed. I gave the details about this in my other |
77 |
e-mail. |
78 |
|
79 |
-- |
80 |
konsolebox |