[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs
From: |
Jan Warchoł |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:01:37 +0200 |
2011/6/18 Graham Percival <address@hidden>
> Well, I'm not encouraged by the general disinterest in this topic.
I'm afraid it's because this problem isn't about finding some new
solutions or establishing a policy (like with C++ code formatting),
but about doing more work. *Maybe* someone will discover a great idea
that will help with mentoring, but i don't think it can be so easy.
It's rather about "we have to put more effort in mentoring. Who wants
to work harder and invest his time in a risky operation?" (as you
wrote mentoring is not always a gain to the project).
> Here's the responsibilities for mentors. Do any of these seem too
> heavy? We can relax/remove any that are a sticking point for many
> people.
I see that these are the same that we have in CG plus one new, about
weekly checks.
> [...]
> 5. Keep track of patches from your contributor. If you’ve sent a
> patch to -devel, it’s your responsibility to pester people to
> get comments for it, or at very least add it to the google
> tracker.
I suggest to write about Rietveld reviews explicitely. I also think it
should be mentor's responsibility, not a "very least option", to add
patch to google tracker.
> 6. Contact your contributor at least once a week. The goal is just
> to get a conversation started – there’s nothing wrong with
> simply copy&pasting this into an email:
>
> Hey there,
>
> How are things going? If you sent a patch and got a review, do
> you know what you need to fix? If you sent a patch but have no
> reviews yet, do you know when you will get reviews? If you are
> working on a patch, what step(s) are you working on?
I suggest one more: if you are working on something not very
difficult, ask your 'apprentices' to review *your* patches! In this
case "please review" would mean "please check if you can understand
what is going on here". Of course it would require that your code is
well commented. I see the following benefits:
- contributors become more involved
- contributors learn more about Lily internals
- contributors feel valued
- mentors learn how to comment their code well
- well commented code is much easier to maintain and improve.
(the last part is especially important to me because i spend more than
half of the time figuring out how things work, so i'd like to see all
code extensively commented; i suppose other Frogs can have similar
problems as i have).
Thoughts?
Janek
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, (continued)
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Graham Percival, 2011/06/15
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Carl Sorensen, 2011/06/15
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Graham Percival, 2011/06/17
- RE: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, James Lowe, 2011/06/18
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Jan Warchoł, 2011/06/21
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Carl Sorensen, 2011/06/19
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Carl Sorensen, 2011/06/19
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs,
Jan Warchoł <=
- Re: GOP-PROP 2: mentors and Frogs, Graham Percival, 2011/06/21