Since moving to Github, we get first-time contributors with drive-bys as well as complicated patches with bugfixes and features in *every* release, on a 2 month cycle
Well, as I previously said. There's very few first comer contributions that actually can just be applied, and the rest requires discussion. And those need to happen somewhere where others have a chance to intervene. Doing that in GH would mandate committers watching it.
-
-
Honestly, I think there's somewhat of an infrastructure/process here (i.e. not having http://contributing.md not auto-closing PRs with referral). But the much larger issue is that there's basically no human resources to do that kind of work.
-
Just adding more committers itself will barely help IMO (if not regress things) - what we need is committers that have this kind of work as a substantial portion of their day job. And then not get harassed / disadvantaged by doing fewer impressive features.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
All that being said, it might be worthwhile to find ways to accelerate doc contributions vs code.
-
I agree that we need to be better at that - but I'll note that a substantial portion of suggested doc changes are anywhere from outright to subtly wrong - often only caught by other senior contributors cross checking them when proposed to be committed by a committer.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Just reading over a well-written GSoC proposal - the student however automatically assumes that he can submit PRs on GitHub, and the discussion happens there. It's going to be harder over time to teach outside developers how the PostgreSQL project works.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.