Re: Patch committers

> That's basically just it: Assume bashing is part of the process. Don't
> think of it as bashing. Take the constructive criticism from it, ignore
> the rest. Assume only one out of three feature ideas will make it.
> Apply the prerequisite amount of gamesmanship to the system and tune
> your bikeshedding detectors. Don't take anything personally. Live and
> learn.

I think what Emmanuel is complaining about here ... with some
justification ... is not the revision requirements of our patch process
but the extremely confusing and frustrating nature of it for new
contributors. For example, how exactly is a new contributor supposed to
know the difference between "bikeshedding" and "constructive criticism",
when (a) they don't know the people involved, and (b) even our more
dedicated committers engage in bikeshedding periodically?

This isn't just Emmanuel; I've heard this complaint from numerous
first-time contributors, and have seen several talented people walk away
from our project because of it. Even people who have stuck with us,
such as Josh Tolley, have remarked on the "hazing ritual" inherent in
getting a first-time contribution in.

Probably, the only possible solution is for each new contributor to have
a mentor who sticks with them throughout the process of getting their
first contribution accepted, explaining the process, pre-reviewing their
submissions, and explaining to them which criticism they should be
paying attention to and which they shouldn't. I *thought* that Bruce
was doing that for AsterData, but apparently not.

This would require a pool of experienced contributors volunteering to be
mentors, which I'm not sure we have.

It would also help if people on this list *in general*, were to be a bit
more consistent about phrasing criticism as constructive criticism.
I've seen far too much "how stupid are you?" on this list for the good
health of our developer community.

--Josh Berkus