C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> When the agenda item for voting new full committers into membership
> was on the table, there were no candidates. Think about that: no
> new full committers for Subversion in the past year. This is a bad
> thing. We need to find a way to embrace and empower would-be
> Subversion contributors.
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> If you have a strong interest in getting your patches reviewed, they
> will eventually be reviewed. If they pass review they will be
> committed (committing isn't the hard part -- review is the hard
> part). It takes some degree of patience and persistence on the
> submitter's behalf. Maybe a bit much of it, which is certainly not
> ideal, because it makes drive-by bugfixing quite hard. But if the
> submitter simply gives up then the patch is very likely to get
And so we have identified one of the problems.
If you're serious about getting new people involved in development,
getting a patch reviewed needs to be *easy*. If someone sends in a patch
and it gets ignored (not maliciously, of course), it's possible that the
submitter is so dedicated that they'll keep sending emails until someone
pays attention. This certainly does happen sometimes. However, it's much
more likely that they'll just decide that nobody's interested, and leave.
Every patch that rots is a potential new developer that you've turned
away at the door. If it seems like there's no time to do patch review,
think how much less time there will be if Subversion continues to grow,
but no new developers join.
Received on 2010-04-12 19:23:12 CEST