I am entirely new, in fact, this is my first post on this list, and I am not entirely sure I have picked the right spot to jump in tbh.
I tried to think of a word for this category that fits better than difficulty, and it seems to me that the word that best captures what I understand to be the intention is something like "Barrier" as in barrier to entry. Perhaps the barrier to entry might best be read component-wise, as in Compiler-{virgin,newbie,veteren} etc? And so that could be combined into the component tag? On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/11/2014 07:43, Jan Stolarek wrote: > >> I believe that current difficulty field is intended to mean "the amount >> of time required by >> someone who already knows what to do". Obviously, that's not the metric >> that we want to use for >> labelling newcomer-friendly tasks. (I wonder if the difficulty field in >> its current form is even >> useful to us?) >> >> Obviously, the metric that we want is "the amount of code familiarity >> required to fix a bug". For >> newcommers we probably want tickets that require knowledge of <1000 lines >> of code. >> >> I think the important questions are: >> >> 1. Do we find the current "difficulty" field useful? >> 2. Should we have a Trac field to label accessibility for newcomers? >> >> My answers are: >> 1. No. >> > > We could remove the Difficulty field, given that it hasn't really been > useful and it can be subsumed by the keywords field for the things we want > it for. It was originally intended to help (a) new developers find tickets > to work on, and (b) help us find good projects for the GSoc. Both of which > can be keywords, so I'd be happy to get rid of Difficulty. > > Cheers, > Simon > > > > > 2. Yes, we should have a filed with accessibility levels like: >> newcomer/intermediate/advanced/rocket science. >> >> If we have 2) then we can have a list of tickets in the Newcomers page >> generated dynamically. >> >> Janek >> >> Dnia czwartek, 13 listopada 2014, Richard Eisenberg napisał: >> >>> Forgive me if I'm repeating others' comments, but the newcomer label, to >>> me, is independent of level of difficulty -- it has much more to do with >>> how "messy" the work is, I think. >>> >>> I'll make a concrete proposal: Tag appropriate bugs/feature requests with >>> "newcomer" and, if you want, mention that you'll mentor in a comment. I >>> don't think there's a glaring need to be able to search by mentor, so I'm >>> not proposing a Trac field for that. >>> >>> If I see here that a few others will adopt this proposal, I'll start >>> doing >>> it -- I already have several tickets in mind. >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Isaac Hollander McCreery < >>> ihmccre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Glad people are excited about this, >>>> >>>> I like "beginner/intermediate/advanced". I think it's more accurate >>>> than >>>> "easy/hard" and clearer than "accessible", "welcoming", etc. >>>> >>>> I also want to call out the "mentor" label that the Rust team is using: >>>> experienced devs nominate themselves as mentors on projects, then >>>> newcomers can tackle them with some support. As a newcomer, that's >>>> *extremely* appealing to me. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ike >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Joachim Breitner >>>> <m...@joachim-breitner.de> wrote: The quality that we are looking for >>>> is >>>> “tacklabe by a newcomer“, i.e. not requiring too deep knowledge of GHC. >>>> Is there a nice word for that? I found “accessible”, “welcoming”, >>>> “appealing” – anything that sounds good in native English speaker’s >>>> ears? >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Various projects I'm involved with use >>>> >>>> difficulty: beginner (or just "beginner") >>>> babydev-bait (!) >>>> newcomer (several use "newbie" but I do not recommend that label) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine >>>> associates allber...@gmail.com >>>> ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad >>>> http://sinenomine.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ghc-devs mailing list >>>> ghc-devs@haskell.org >>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ghc-devs mailing list >>>> ghc-devs@haskell.org >>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> ghc-devs@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> >> _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs