On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Stestagg <stest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response, that's quite interesting. I guess there are a
> few angles to consider for that, issues being one of them :)
>
Thank you for asking me to flesh out my rationale. As a professional
software engineer I'm simply used to a bit more rigor than most open source
projects typically impose (although there are exceptions like the Linux
kernel). I recognize that what I expect of my coworkers at $dayjob cannot
be reasonably expected of volunteers who have a far broader range of skills
and experience. Still, I think that by clearly documenting expectations
(i.e., whether in the README.md or the wiki is TBD) and leading by example
(i.e., having the core maintainers follow best practices) it should be
possible to at least slightly improve the current status quo.
Consider that by gentle nudging I've already managed to prune the open
pull-request backlog to a manageable size. When I started contributing I
was dismayed to see PRs from people that were more than a year old. Going
forward I hope we can maintain a focus on responding to pull-requests in a
more timely manner. Getting people in the habit of tying a PR to an open
issue should give reviewers better context and thus facilitate deciding if
a PR is ready to be merged or needs more work.
--
Kurtis Rader
Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785231&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
