On Tuesday 2014-01-14 16:36, Adam Spiers wrote:
In both cases significant enough to just walk away.
I really cannot understand this. I have already given two very clear benefits of adhering to a github-oriented workflow, namely transparent peer code review, and automated testing via Travis. Despite this you have stated, without any explanation why, that you are not prepared to spend the 60 seconds required to create a github account
Because it's another account that wants to be managed. It's more than 60 seconds in the long run. I could make it a trash account, but I'd forget those even faster and would have to recreate one everytime. It's all the reason (I would envision) why the kernel is still developed on a mailing list and nothing else - even their bugzilla is optional.
The success of this feedback loop depends on the willingness of both parties to iterate until there is consensus. It will *not* succeed if the contributor simply throws a bunch of patches over the wall and then walks off expecting the maintainer to do the rest of the work.
Well for one, you _called_ for patches. Don't complain if you get some ;)
Rejecting a patch that fails to apply with TortoiseSVN even though it is totally compliant to the unified diff specification is something not within my maintainer ideals.
Please can you explain how that is relevant here?
It's one of my experiences where "Submit it in a format the maintainer wants" was driven too far. If the thing is on review on github, good. If not, screw it. I don't care. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org