On 02/09/2017 03:02 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
It took me a while to find it, because you were using a pseudonym that I
did not recognize. There are a number of frequent contributors to D
using pseudonyms, and all have this issue with varying degrees.
[...]
I suppose I could write a cheat sheet
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 20:12:06 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Out of curiosity: is it typical that it would not post until
some way into the discussion (as in that example)? I could see
why it would be irritating if it popped up once discussion and
review had already started
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 23:44:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I appreciate how frustrating it must be to have people saying,
'Hey, do this! Do that!' without necessarily volunteering their
own efforts in support, but organizational improvements so very
often fail unless they are eagerly
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 17:45:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
No. There should be appropriate checks and reviews, yes. But,
no, every little fix and improvement shouldn't feel like trying
to get somewhere in a year-long tabs vs spaces debate or making
a big-budget sales pitch to
On 2/9/2017 1:45 PM, Jon Degenhardt wrote:
However, when a PR
associated with the issue is created, the ticket itself is normally not updated
until after the review is finished and the PR closed, to late to help out.
It normally is. I do it for all mine and for others I notice that have not
On 2/9/2017 1:06 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 20:43:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
*Anyone* in this community can step up and do that.
Anyone can make observations and proposals, but not everyone has the authority
to effect change.
Anyone can proactively
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 16:48:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
There's clearly in part a scaling problem here (in terms of how
many people are available in general, and in terms of how many
people have expertise on particular parts of the library) but
it also feels like a few
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 20:43:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
*Anyone* in this community can step up and do that.
Anyone can make observations and proposals, but not everyone has
the authority to effect change.
I appreciate how frustrating it must be to have people saying,
'Hey, do
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 16:48:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
which is that after some initial interest and feedback, the PR
just got left alone with no decision to accept or reject it,
and no indication of why.
This is why I only contribute to Phobos to be quite honest.
I
Dne 9.2.2017 v 21:43 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce napsal(a):
On 2/9/2017 12:29 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but it could be good to examine what can be done to more
pro-actively look
at open PRs that have had no recent follow-up.
*Anyone* in this community can step up
On 2/9/2017 12:29 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but it could be good to examine what can be done to more pro-actively look
at open PRs that have had no recent follow-up.
*Anyone* in this community can step up and do that.
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 19:53:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
There's a lot going on needing attention, and sometimes a bit
of championing is needed by their proponents.
Yes, but it could be good to examine what can be done to more
pro-actively look at open PRs that have had no recent
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 19:58:57 UTC, Seb wrote:
We gave this a try a couple of months ago with Facebook's
mention-bot:
Example:
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4318#issuecomment-241817191
Repo: https://github.com/dlang-bots/mention-bot
Eventually I disabled it because people
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 19:42:03 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 19:36:52 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Good idea! Please investigate how to get github to generate
such emails. In the meantime, the PR guidelines are here:
We gave this a try a couple of months ago
On 2/9/2017 8:55 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 09:49:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
In any case, shouldn't it be an uphill battle to merge things? There are a lot
of things that need to be satisfied to merge something. Being too hasty leads
to legacy code that
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 19:36:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Good idea! Please investigate how to get github to generate
such emails. In the meantime, the PR guidelines are here:
This is already somewhat done with the PR bot we have. The
DlangBot notifies reviewers on the DMD repo, but
On 2/9/2017 8:48 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Contrast this with the experience I had the one time I submitted a (tiny,
trivial) patch to rust: immediately after submitting the PR I got a message from
their 'highfive' robot that included:
* a friendly thank you for the PR;
* the
On 02/09/2017 04:49 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/8/2017 11:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And any PRs I have managed to get through were all uphill battles the
whole way.
You have contributed 5 PRs to dmd:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Aabscissa
1 is open
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 09:49:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
In any case, shouldn't it be an uphill battle to merge things?
There are a lot of things that need to be satisfied to merge
something. Being too hasty leads to legacy code that we come to
regret, angry people whose code was
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 08:02:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The PR in question:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/4745
It took me a while to find it, because you were using a
pseudonym that I did not recognize. There are a number of
frequent contributors to D using pseudonyms, and
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 08:02:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I suppose I could write a cheat sheet and tape it to the wall
of my office, but why not just use your name?
It shouldn't matter who wrote it. Review the code, not the
author, especially on small ones like this which new
On 2/8/2017 11:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
And any PRs I have managed to get through were all uphill battles the whole way.
You have contributed 5 PRs to dmd:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Aabscissa
1 is open (it's controversial)
1 closed (today by me)
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 08:02:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I do not understand using pseudonyms on github. It can hardly
be a privacy issue, as github doesn't hide your name. But it
definitely impedes your "brand", i.e. your reputation, as it
becomes divided in two. Github does not
On 2/8/2017 11:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I fixed an issue where "///"-style doc comments resulted in excessive paragraph
breaks...must've been over a year ago. Simple fix for a nagging bug. The fix
worked. Caused no problems. No controversy. And to this day, just went
completely ignored
On 02/09/2017 01:08 AM, Joakim wrote:
I agree that "coercion," or more accurately the tyranny of the default,
is the dominant factor in language popularity even today, but you're
reaching when you apply that to web frameworks too.
Fair enough. It was just another example trying to make the
I'm not going to fill out the questionnaire because I'm not at a
company and have not tried Mir, but two points about what Nick
and Mike wrote.
On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 20:40:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
Coercion (and perceived coercion[1] for that matter) makes
technologies
26 matches
Mail list logo
