On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 5:33 PM, rupert THURNER
<rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
i'd really appreciate some love towards other
projects here, and
get things fixed at source as well, in mid term (i.e months, one or
two years).
Lots of people are working on lots of different projects. What's your
point? Or am I missing some implication that you were referring to a
particular project?
hi faidon, i do not think you personally and WMF are
particularly
helpful in accepting contributions. because you:
* do not communicate openly the problems
* do not report upstream publically
* do not ask for help, and even if it gets offered you just ignore it
with quite some arrogance
I have some first hand experience with contributing to various WMF git
repos and I've observed the way people respond to new contributors. I
don't think your points are accurate in general. (but neither is the
process perfect every time.)
OTOH, you can send patches/edits to documentation/processes for
integrating work from new contributors. I will commit to reviewing the
first few of your proposed changes if they are truly constructive and
you send me links to them within a reasonable amount of time from now.
Clipping out the part about gitblit and forking that to another thread.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Faidon Liambotis
<faidon(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Is dedicating (finite) engineering time to write
the necessary code for
e.g. gdnsd to support DNSSEC, just to be able to support DANE for
which there's exactly ZERO browser support, while at the same time
breaking a significant chunk of users, a sensible thing to do?
i don't mean this to sound rude, but you give me the impression that
you handle the https and dns case similarly than the gitblit case. you
tried some approaches, and let me perceive you think only in your wmf
box.
I think I may understand what "paying half the rent" was supposed to
mean earlier. (even if I don't think it was applicable to gitblit. As
I said above, forked irrelevant discussion about gitblit performance
to another thread)
But, I don't understand how that could possibly apply at all to what
you quoted above. Faidon's statements about DANE and development time
and prioritizing seem sensible to me. (at least on first reading and
given the caveat that I haven't read about DANE yet) In particular I
don't see any indication that something was attempted and then people
gave up. (note: giving up is sometimes justified too!)
There are some realities we have to live with even if we don't like
them and those may effect how we prioritize some work. e.g. we can't
choose which browser people use to access our projects and we can't
stop them from using a 6 year old OS. (and we can't choose which ISP
or country they access the projects from!) What we *can* do is measure
how many people use which browsers and versions, ISPs, etc. and get
statistics on how many people will be effected (positively or
negatively) by a given change. (and maybe that's not always perfect
but at least it can help)
So, at what point do we decide that not enough people are effected for
us to devote time to something? if it only effects people running
* an alpha browser build released yesterday?
* a nightly automated browser build?
* a browser built with a patch applied that's not even in trunk/master yet?
I don't know and I'm happy I usually don't have to get involved with
those decisions. And of course sometimes we have advanced warning that
a change currently in an alpha or beta will be included in a build
that will soon be widely released.
OTOH, not everything any engineer does is dictated by those questions;
some things are fixed or improved just because a particular engineer
cared about it. And I think that's good too. (also, patches welcome!
you don't have to be anyone special to be that person that cared a
little extra about a feature)
-Jeremy