Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc: add another way to identify if a patch has been merged

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 2, 2017, 16:01 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqini6dkmu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1501677122.1957.8.camel@gmail.com>

Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 10:46 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> Actually I am slightly negative on this one, because of
>> occurrences like [1].
>> 
>> Our SubmittingPatches is already considered *too long* for most people
>> who just want to drop a drive-by patch.
>> 
>> Adding more knowledge (which btw is about general git usage and not
>> specific to our development workflow; you'd find the same tip in the
>> kernel community).
>> 
>> I wonder if we need a document that describes workflows.
>> (Oh, look we have 'man gitworkflows'! I did not know)
>> 
>> So maybe we want to cut a lot of workflow related commendatory from
>> the SubmitingPatches and then encourage to read such man page?
>> 
> That's right. Maybe Documentation/SubmittingPatches needs a revamp to
> be one-time contributor friendly? Maybe introducing a "gist" for people
> who do not have the time to read the whole document, might be of help?

First of all, I do not think lack of one-time contributor is something we should consider to be a problem. Supporting new contributors so that they will be involved more in the development process is a lot more important issue.

A new contributor will get something wrong no matter what the documentation says. One-time contributor's intention is "I am sending a patch this time, but I have no plan to get involved further---I do not have time for this". It ridiculous to ask for a patch that adds an 's' to the end of a third-party-singular verb in the present tense to be rerolled only because the title had an extra full-stop at the end. Practically, a patch like that by a "one time contributor" will always have to be fixed before committing it.

I think the exchange Stefan cited was an example that we want to have more of. The contributor is indicating that, even though the patch could be a drive-by patch by one-timer from whom we will never hear again, it is not--the contributor is willing to learn the way things are done here, and showing that it is worth _our_ time to explain the things so that the future patches will take less effort to accept on our side.

Because we do not have a group of dedicated volunteers, it is done by more experienced people around here but that can be done only when they have time. I view it as a more severe problem than any documentation. An abbreviated version of the documentation to invite more new people means that we must be prepared to give more high-touch onboarding help to them.