On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:16:35 AM UTC-6, Fogus wrote: > I'll just add a few points: > > Pull requests are not likely to happen. It's not worth fighting over. > However, I think that is a weak excuse for not contributing. If you > want to contribute a complex bug fix, then the patch process is > trivial by comparison. If you want to contribute doc fixes and think > that the patch process is too cumbersome (or in the case of the wiki, > not applicable) then there are numerous options in order of decreasing > visibility: > > - use Github's annotation capabilities to add editorial comments > (e.g. https://t.co/UXrsMk2M) > - mailing lists > - send a tweet > - IRC > - email your suggested enhancements to the maintainer > > There are many ways to contribute valuable documentation and minor bug > fixes than the patch system. In most cases a matter of rights never > comes into play because using editorial commentary and the > identification of bugs fall under the aegis of fair use (otherwise Joy > of Clojure would have 24 co-authors). There are other advantages to > Github besides pull requests, annotations being just the one that > directly pertains to this discussion. If you want to help then there > are numerous ways to do so. If you want to push an agenda then by all > means continue this thread. > > I would love to see a better system in place for contributing to the > wiki. I have no solution sadly. > > Likewise I would love to see a separate mailing lists and IRC for > ClojureScript -- although nothing is stopping someone from creating > them except the promise of a thankless job in moderation. Maybe > that's why it hasn't happened yet - everyone is hoping someone else > will do the dirty work. ;-) > > We're all friends here. Everyone wants to help. There are ways to > help that do not involve endless mailing list threads and personal > distaste of process. >
I think most people here have missed the point. This thread and the arguments in the past aren't and never have been about how hard it is to get a contribution accepted into Clojure. It does not matter where that contribution comes from. Your code will be rejected for any number of reasons (stupid, bad code, not a real problem). It doesn't matter if that code is in a pull request, patch on a jira ticket, printed and mailed to Rich Hickey, or send up in a rocket to circle the sun before strategically landing in Stuart Halloway's hands. Please do not conflate Github pull requests with the 'willy nilly' acceptance of contributions. The two have nothing to do with one another. It appears that a few people here are surprised that people want this so bad or that they are persistently arguing for it. It's because we (including me) do not understand why the pleasant and perfectly legal processes that several other projects (many that I believe are perhaps larger than Clojure) and we are baffled. The same responses are always reiterated, such as Sean Corfield's (who means well and whom I have no animosity against) legal responses. Our OP (who appears to have left out of frustration at vague answers and the lack of any response by clojure/core) is at one of those organizations. Are we saying that Mozilla's open source contribution process is not legal enough? Otherwise, what exactly are we saying? Please don't ask people to not rehash this discussion. Don't tell them that it is a 'weak reason' for not contributing and 'not worth fighting over'. That's ridiculous. How many people have brought this up? Isn't it a little arrogant to just dismiss the issue as "Meh, they're not as smart as I am and obviously just don't understand my super special complex reason for doing all these bizarre things. Let's just shoo them away"? In closing, I propose the following. If we're going to continuously deny people things they are accustomed to, instead of treating them like angry children having tantrums, why don't we get a response from clojure/core and have it displayed prominently somewhere would-be contributors can see it? The page should at least explain: * Why we use Jira * Why we only accept Jira patches * Why contribution processes like those adopted by organizations and companies like Mozilla are not acceptable Is that too much to ask for? I know Rich implied problems with entitlement in the community related to other things, and this may come off as me saying we're entitled to things, I think people who have roughed through the Clojure contribution process and came out on the other side with the opinion that there is a problem (see Brandon Bloom for a model example) *should* be entitled to more than dismissal. I am not one of them, my first patch is still in the jira waiting phase, but I cringe when I see this discussion nonetheless. Having spent some amount of time trying to use JIRA, I almost believe that that in particular *was* done to make the contribution process more hostile. Obviously it wasn't, but was there really nothing better? Presumably there wasn't, not for Clojure, but do I know why? I do not. Just that single page with those three bullet points would solve that problem. The next thread that pops up could be responded to with little more than a link, and if people wanted to argue them they'd have a lot more grounds to do so. -Anthony -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
