Re: ’Pond Jobs & Their Descriptions

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 21:24 -0500 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi again, Graham:
> 
> More concretely… Where can I go, in the CG or elsewhere, to find something 
> that looks like this:
> 
> Job: Patch Formatter
> Tasks: Ensure that a submitted patch conforms to the Lilypond code standards 
> (found <here> and <here> and <here>).
> Requirements: a text editor; working knowledge of the programming language(s) 
> used in a given patch (possibilities: C++, Scheme, python).
> Estimated Time Commitment: 5 minutes (per average patch), currently an 
> average of 7 patches per week
> References & Links: <Lilypond code style guide here>, <good auto-formatting 
> tools here>, etc.
> Receives From: Patch Submitter or Patch Reviewer
> Passes To: Patch Reviewer

My thoughts: Formalizing to that degree hurts an open source project
instead of helping. It gives new contributors a lot more to understand
to even start and decreases efficiency for developers, as every micro-
managing does in day jobs. Personally I don't want to see tens of jobs
that I all have to memorize in order to contribute.

I'm open to reconsider the current description of jobs, adapt if
necessary, and add new jobs if really needed - but certainly not a
"Patch Formatter", that's part of the review process which is no job,
every developer should participate.

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part