Patch Pilot report
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Nov 23 08:23:47 GMT 2009
Andrew Bennetts writes:
> I just finished the first round of patch piloting[.]
> Robert's doing this week[.]
Thank you, and TIA to Robert!
> I took a "just do it" approach to piloting patches.
That's not really what I expected of a patch pilot ...
> If the changes required were fairly small, or even moderate, it
> usually seemed to me to be easier to just make the tweak and write
> the missing tests myself, rather than teach and cajole the
> contributors to do themselves.
... agreed, "teach and cajole" is expensive. "Suggest and teach if
interested" is less so, and a real investment in the future. But
that's just theory: is it worth it in your opinion, accounting for the
fact that it surely means fewer patches are landed per pilot?
> Also, I deliberately chose patches from new contributors over
I'm not sure I like the sound of that. My understanding was that the
patch pilot was supposed to help less experienced and/or one-off
contributors to deal with the relatively technical aspects (proper
docs and tests, for example). That may be a misunderstanding, but you
see where I'm going: if one is needed to get regulars past the
Charybdis of PQM and the Scylla of committers too busy to review,
there's a constricted bottleneck that needs shattering.
More information about the bazaar