Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> writes: > | If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers > | for a new contributors patch > | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new > | contributors. > > Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong -- impression to > convey. Thanks for highlighting it. > > You'd like the maintainers to have an *obligation* to cause someone to > produce a good review on every patch. Here's the worst-case scenario: a > well-meaning but inexperienced person produces a stream of large, > ill-thought-out, and mostly wrong patches. To give a guarantee of high > quality reviews of those patches amounts to a blank cheque on the time of > volunteers working mostly in their spare time. > > Now, of course, that's an extreme scenario. But that's why I'm keen to avoid > making it an unconditional obligation that the few maintainers must discharge. > > I don’t think there is really a difference of opinion here. Of course we > welcome patches; of course everyone will try to help find reviewers if they > are lacking! > > So how about this > - the author nominates reviewers > - if he or she finds difficulty in doing so, or the reviewers s/he > nominates are unresponsive, then he or she should ask for help > - maintainers should make efforts to help > In my mind there has always been a (perhaps too implicit) promise that maintainers are always present in the background and happy to help in finding reviewers if asked (and perhaps even if not, if it seems a contributor is lost).
Perhaps we should make this more explicit? Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
