I dont particularly advocate GH for postgres, but believing the tool is the problem for getting contributions is false iMHO
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.
-
And that requires resources. I think that's a much bigger issue than "allow github". Unless we have those there'll be not resources to merge trivial stuff either. It's not like there's not plenty of that on the lists.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@magnushagander We could use https://github.com/dessant/repo-lockdown … github app - it requires "only" issue (disabled) and PR read/write rights, and can be configured in a separate .github repository. -
Something like that would be a much better experience than the current state.. especially if coupled with improved onboarding/dev docs to refer to
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is the real crux of the matter. The notion that making providing patches or PR's easier is IMO pointless until we solve how to deal with reviewing them. Which is really a resource issue. If someone really truly wants to help the project then review patches.
-
This is a chicken-egg problem: you don't get small patches for review, because the process is complicated. And without small patches, you don't grow many new reviewer.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
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.