Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of wendallc@83864.com designates
 209.85.160.44 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5143FD89.5050404@83864.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:05:13 -0700
From: Wendall Cada <wendallc@83864.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130219 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Send Github new comment notifications to the dev list
References: 
 <CAPaJBx4iUwTOBUjpVyBs+q8TO=c+__D5ui3n1UZmC-G4Sga47A@mail.gmail.com>
 <731E2379-0031-4137-ABB4-78914713EF8C@apache.org>
 <CAJ_m3YDp36_058qcMQ42mf6VStS6v+1gSUDeB+jHGo4fB2Tv8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <65A80E2D-0742-4C12-9671-2BA4B8ED477E@apache.org>
 <CAJNb-9rW=e6M6C5rFwd5ESsWFEXDQVzoE_9OBpAXTkEQ+BPQKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPaJBx7V6F2dg+Fc5xJfdEV0b1k=bRx3oAxkw8cZE=5imoFW_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPaJBx7V6F2dg+Fc5xJfdEV0b1k=bRx3oAxkw8cZE=5imoFW_A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

+1 on sending the discussion to the ML.

Another thought is, if there was some type of consensus for what a good 
patch request looked like, and was documented and understandable, a PR 
on github could lead to giving the submitter instructions for the 
recommended best method. Currently, it's very confusing for outside 
contributors, like myself. I'm pretty savvy about all the available 
methods, and still not sure exactly what to do. In the last few patches 
I created, I made PR on github, and added the patches to the relevant 
JIRA tickets. In one case, I didn't have a JIRA ticket for the initial 
PR, so I created a JIRA ticket for it and updated.

Bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter what needs doing, just need 
instructions for what needs done. The details are quite irrelevant so 
long as it doesn't fall through the cracks.

Really without any clear instructions or method, the outside impression 
can easily be misinterpreted that the contributions are unwelcome. I 
know this isn't the case, but just being clear that it's easy to draw 
incorrect conclusions when no clear evidence exists for any viewpoint.

Wendall

On 03/15/2013 06:13 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Not trying to ignore it, Benoit. And I'm not saying I have the complete
> solution to all the things we talked about. I'm just yanking out one
> (minor) concrete suggestion and trying to get a green light for someone to
> play around with it.
>
>
> On 16 March 2013 01:04, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> this thread is quite ignoring the current discussion on another thread
>> though. The question is are we trying to hack around the problem or
>> solve it?
>>
>> I'm -0 on that for that reason.
>>
>> - beno�t
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 16.03.2013, at 00:47, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do not have to respond if you think this is a good idea. In 72
>> hours I
>>>>>> will assume lazy consensus.
>>>>> Hope you don't mind if I respond anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>
>