Hey guys, There are two main aspects to the article:
1. Rate of contributions dwindles down 2. When you try to contribute, you get turned down ( http://rachelnabors.com/2012/04/of-github-and-pull-requests-and-comics/) I wanted to focus on the second aspect, and note that I think we're doing rather well in that regard. The patch that the article autor proposes is that possible grounds for patch rejection can be as follows: - The patch has an obvious security vulnerability - The project has a pre-existing, documented, design decision or policy against the feature - The patch violates a pre-existing, documented backwards compatibility policy. In this case there should be a focus on merging the patch in a way compliant with the policy, like in the next major version, etc. - There is actual evidence, not mere speculation, that the patch has significant downsides. For example, benchmarks showing degraded performance on an important platform. - The patch causes test failures And the comment: "Notably absent from my list of objections is any concern for project stability." Maciej
