On May 5, 2016 11:26 AM, "Arseniy Seroka" <ars.ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > I'm working with PR for more than 1,5 years. I saw maybe once that a person completely lost his interest.
I just really didn't have time / intention to support what I was packaging :D > > On 5 May 2016 12:13:45 GMT+03:00, zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com> wrote: > >This paragraph in the article sums the problem pretty much: > > > >> What’s even more frustrating is that even though Jane provides > >feedback > >quickly, often contributors lose interest and/or forget about taking > >their > >Pull Requests the final step after initially contributing them. The > >apparent triviality of the changes Jane’s asking for (somewhat > >perversely) > >contributes to that loss of interest, since it just feels like > >nit-picking > >when she’s asking for the fifth overlooked stylistic change. > > > >Especially if the only motivation is to keep the git history pretty, it > >doesn't play any functional role. I agree that the person merging could > >also amend the commits but then it just shifts the burden to this group > >of > >people. Wouldn't we rather move forward and get even more code merged ? > > > >On Wed, 4 May 2016 at 13:09 Graham Christensen <gra...@grahamc.com> > >wrote: > > > >> I've found this post insightful (disregard the title) about how to > >not be > >> too much of a stickler with new committers: > >> > > https://blog.spreedly.com/2014/06/24/merge-pull-request-considered-harmful/ > >> > >> Graham > >> > >> > On May 4, 2016, at 6:26 AM, zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Each contributor has his own motivations and every round were we > >provide > >> feedback is another one where we might lose the contributor. He might > >run > >> out of energy, or have moved onto other things. > >> > > >> > Even after improving the CONTRIBUTING.md, naming of commits is > >still a > >> really big friction to getting valid code into nixpkgs. I'm talking > >of how > >> commits should be named after a patter like "package: init at x.y.z" > >or > >> "package: a.b.c -> x.y.z". > >> > > >> > I must admit I don't really know the motivations behind this rule. > >All I > >> can think of it that we could theoretically build some tooling and > >get > >> pretty cool stats out of it. And that spelunking git history becomes > >a tiny > >> bit easier. > >> > > >> > Given all that I think we should reconsider that rule. In my > >opinion if > >> a contributor submits valid nix code that is useful to the project we > >> should just be able to merge it and move forward. For me it's more > >> important than the commit naming rule. > >> > > >> > Opinions ? > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > nix-dev mailing list > >> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> > >> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >nix-dev mailing list > >nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQFDBAEBCgAtJhxBcnNlbml5IFNlcm9rYSA8YXJzLnNlcm9rYUBnbWFpbC5jb20+ > BQJXKxGeAAoJEMTxMd9/e0DjfU8IAMJO1N2RFQ7GQRO3JxBPqOZB8yqkTOafoVry > H0BHYjnCRIaLER1s6MFO6+ELf0ynhZ+aaOJcHqyV5xR5KOegeYmfk33/3BDIPZq0 > g+Hc0YfiKzq23R6PeHLm2DNE5XpMA1kzmqOeH3tEprcURhu4tgTkcaIXMxg/v/Bq > jQKvdvsfDQJaoWKFUvGFtB0SgC7pJZ7gVEmF8EJJWDrVBNBOEZ6ncp49ewAuSPyD > bv9QtWvek1a2RKqso6pYMWSpu3nPepsWF89kHRlPs0KCBZjhel+DZODaBHzd+Sk3 > MeFXgLK7bBIh5A58XVYCQleaZaZB8QkHBqgoKAsr9lFioDqPs8c= > =uZUq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev