Re: Cc'ing the Git maintainer on GitGitGadget contributions, was Re: [PATCH 0/1] add--interactive: skip index refresh in reset patch mode

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 10, 2021, 12:21 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2101101306310.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <X/i7zvgMJHfOmyZG@nand.local>

Hi Taylor,

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Taylor Blau wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:56:20PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > We may not be able to automate the thinking part to decide when
> > > submitter may want to get help, but an automation can help by giving
> > > the submitter cues and clues when to ask for help and from whom.
> >
> > I fear that we're striking the balance on the side of expecting too much
> > knowledge about project-specific lore from contributors.
>
> I think that this could be reasonably addressed. When someone opens a PR
> (but before the hit /submit), GGG could say:
>
>     Your change touches these files, and so suggested reviewers include
>     X, Y, Z. When you believe your submission is in its last round,
>     please also include the maintainer, M.

That is an option.

Is it the best option to reach the goal where competent software engineers can focus on improving Git's source code?

Maybe it is not possible do automate what I wish for.

Show 12 quoted lines

> > We already have a ticket suggesting to add reviewers:
> > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/issues/219
> >
> > With this suggestion, too, we could go and extend that wall of text even
> > further and expect contributors to just know what they are supposed to do.
> > But I don't see how that would make this process more inviting to new
> > contributors.
>
> Yeah, I agree that adding this as a separate step does not make sense,
> since it's hard to discover such things (especially by individuals who
> merely want to send a single contribution to the project). Having this
> happen automatically upon creating a PR would make more sense to me.

Right.

I always have this contribution in mind: Improve the readability of `log --graph` output (https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/383)

This was an excellent contribution. I doubt that we would have received it without GitGitGadget, as the contributor could really focus on the code change instead of the contribution logistics.

We did not exactly make it easy, and I fear that we are losing a lot of potential contributions because of that.

For example, Git is often ridiculed for being hard to use, and I can understand. There has been research into ways to improve that, but little of that research resulted in contributions on the Git mailing list. I would not at all be surprised if that was because of the review process we put up.

Usability is only one area where I think we would benefit from attracting talent. Accessibility is another one. Or UI improvements (consistency, self-explanatory navigation, etc). Or...

Ciao, Dscho