On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and >> best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple >> projects, e.g., AOO and LO. >> >> I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing >> code on a new page: >> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html >> >> Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. >> > Nice page, however I do not like "We're not interested in large > code-dumps.", I would prefer if you wrote something like: > > "Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a > simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can > achieve the best result". >
Maybe there is a better of way of phrasing this, but we really don't want code dumps. In other words, we're not interested in having a new large body of code to maintain. A large code base requires developers to maintain it. If it is a code dump then this dilutes our attention on the existing code base. So new large contributions really need to come along with developers to help maintain the code. > When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code > patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a > function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has > written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. > > As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is > something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). > Maybe I need to define "code dump" then. I don't think what you are doing is "code dump", It is large, but I assume that you don't just contribute it and disappear. So help integrating is one part. For a bug fix is a smaller enhancement, maybe that is all we need. But suppose someone wants to contribute something large, like a complete new application as part of the suite? Let's see if we agree on that general idea. If so I can find a clearer way of expressing it. -Rob > rgds > Jan I. > > > >> Thanks, >> >> -Rob >>
