On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:02:57 -0500 Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote:
> And still you can find endless complaints about their onerous > contribution workflow If more people can send patches, it is indeed very good, but the point of these workflow and tools is also to prioritize the efficient of the maintainers over things like the efficiency of new contributors, and so if newer tools require more involvement from maintainers, then requiring them puts the project in a dangerous situation. For instance if you have a tool that checks for common errors, then requiring to run it before sending a patch[1] can be a good idea even if it increase the difficulty to contribute. There was a very old presentation of git by Torvalds for instance, and if you read between the lines, you can deduce that things like SVN were probably easier than git as the maintainers would be the ones that do the work of rebasing contributors patches. However if maintainers burnout that is bad. So one of the point of git was also to move a lot of the burden away from the maintainers to the contributors. References: ----------- [1]This can be done in the instructions to contribute. Actually enforcing this through technical means is also dangerous as tools can also have bugs. Denis.
pgpITFSvARxaB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
