Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 08:40:05AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> > The experience from the Grand Documentation Project is that only
>> > 25% of new doc contributors ended up being a net benefit.  Having
>> > an up-front hurdle, provided that it's well-explained, is a useful
>> > way to weed out people who are likely to fall into the remaining
>> > 75%.
>> 
>> But indeed a valid other strategy would be to have the 75% have little
>> to no upfront cost.  That's one of the reasons we have a Contributor's
>> Guide.
>
> Reviewing patches?  Explaining why we reject a patch (I don't
> think we can fairly reject a patch unless we explain why)?  Those
> are significant costs.

It would be my guess that the expected quality of patches delivered with
reasonably "standard" Git workflows would be higher than with a
LilyPond-specific workflow equally taxing on specialists and beginners.

It's true that the current setup helps us avoid the significant cost of
reviewing and rejecting (or accepting) patches.  But it's not like we
can hope to go anywhere without incurring that cost.

-- 
David Kastrup