[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:54:34 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:45:05PM +0100, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > If we are serious about doing this next year, I think we need to develop a
> > stronger website around GSOC.  As I read the requirements, it appears to
> > me that to be competitive we need to have a more fully-developed
> > infrastructure.
> I agree.  As i was in the middle of the whole thing, i suppose i don't
> have enough perspective;

FWIW, I think it's something like 20% of project applications are

> the only thing that comes to my mind at the
> moment is that our CG is a bit messy and he patch procedures should be
> more automated and unified, and the whole process described more
> clearly than it is now.
> Can you share your thoughts?

That's pretty much it.  I'd split it into a few separate tasks,

1. what are the pain points involved in experienced developers
contributing to lilypond?  Fix those first -- making it a more fun
process might keep experienced developers around longer, but also
anything that bugs us is likely to annoy or confuse new

git-cl is the biggest contender here, along with patch management
in general.

2. does the CG accurately reflect our current process?  hint: it
doesn't.  The "quick start" description is flawed (there's
something off about the printed stuff about lily-git.tcl), and
even chapter 1 is inaccurate (it suggests that we have a
"mentoring" program, which frankly we don't).

3. once the above two points are nailed down -- which will likely
take 3-6 months -- *then* I think it's worth inviting/begging
somebody new to start contributing as a programmer, *with* a
dedicated mentor who will specifically find+fix pain points in
that process.

> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Graham Percival
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > It might be good to wait a week to see what projects were
> > accepted,
> ?

Somebody on another venue pointed out that it'll take a few hours
or days for the complete list to show up; at that time, it was
only showing the first 30% of accepted projects.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]