Some ideas how to achieve that have been mentioned: Eli Carter asked specifically for workflow/ticketing system lieutenants, and Christian Boos gave a few generic entry points for helping out as well.
I'm in the position of somebody who would like to help, and has some spare time do do so. However, the advice of "tackling any problem of intermediate size" is somewhat too generic for me. I would need some guidance, to get started and along the way:
- What are the currently "hot" topics for core developers? I would rather invest time on an issue or feature that is perceived as being important (desired, interesting, cool, etc.) than any old issue. This would also lower the risk that a contribution would be left out because other things are more important at some point.
- Once a desired work topic has been found, I would need some help for defining the general direction for a solution. It would not be very efficient to just run head down into some direction, only to get told later that it wasn't adequate.
- What would be the workflow for contributions by non-core developers? Would I send patches against trunk or a branch, and have them reviewed? Should the patches be reviewed by one core developer (a tutor) or should the patches be reviewed on trac-dev? Or should I use an externally-accessible DVCS (I'm currently using Mercurial)?
In short, I would need a topic, some initial guidance, and regular feedback. Does that sound reasonable?
My current interest lies with multi-repository integration, as this is the norm when using a DVCS. Is this topic desired? Any chance of finding a "problem of intermediate size" on this topic, and somebody willing to push me in the right direction and review my contributions?
-- Remy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
