Re: improving our contributing tools and workflow

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:12:27PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 26/09/13 14:52, Phil Holmes wrote:
> >"We've had bad experiences where a helpful and enthusiastic new
> >contributor misunderstood the instructions, ran off and did 5 hours of
> >work instead of 10 minutes, and none of the main developers wanted to
> >take the time to deal with the results of the 5-hour work, so the
> >whole thing was wasted. (literally wasted, as in "the project would
> >have received more benefit from the 10-minute job instead of the
> >5-hour work")"
> 
> This risks becoming another corrosive discussion,

Then WTF are you starting it?

> There is another possible response to such a situation, and it's:
> "Oh wow, this person put a load of work in, they're obviously really
> committed and enthusiastic.  OK, let's use these problems with what
> they've done as an opportunity to educate them better about how
> Lilypond works and how to avoid these kinds of problem in the
> future, and make them feel that we really value the time they've put
> in and want to repay them in kind."

Great answer!  I'm so happy that YOU STEPPED FORWARD TO DO THIS IN
THE PAST.  The main developers owe NOTHING to somebody just
because they did some work.  I try to warn people NOT to waste
their time, and Phil helpfully carries these warnings forward, and
people criticize us for being demotivating.

> But I still think that it's possible to approach
> contributors with enthusiastic caution rather than lowered
> expectations, which are demoralizing for everyone.

I breathlessly await the time when YOU do this, instead of
complaining that existing developers don't do whatever you think
they should be doing.  Of course, first you need to learn how
stuff works, and so far you've shown minimal interest in doing so.

- Graham