Yes, lots of bad content might be submitted, but usually it is easy and
quick to spot, and could become good content over time. What I think we
should follow is the model that most other big open source projects follow,
which does seem to have lower barrier of entry.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-08 2:20 PM, "Bartosz DziewoĆski"
<matma.rex(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:07:18 +0100, Antoine Musso <hashar+wmf(a)free.fr>
wrote:
I guess the whole idea of using GitHub is for
public relation and to
attract new people. Then, if a developer is not willing to learn
Gerrit, its code is probably not worth the effort of us integrating
github/gerrit. That will just add some more poor quality code to your
review queues.
This a hundred times. I manage a few (small) open-source projects at
GitHub, and
most of the patches I get are not even up to my standards (and
those are significantly lower than WMF's ones).
Submitting a patch to gerrit and even fixing it after code review is not
that
hard. (Of course any more complicated operations like rebasing do
suck, but you hopefully won't be doing that with your first patch.)
--
Matma Rex
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Making it easier to contribute is always going to cause more lower quality
content to be submitted, since the unmotivated arent weeded out. But there
are plenty of good people that also would get weeded out. I think this
debate has a lot in common with the perenial debates on wikipedia to futher
restrict anons and non autoconfirmed users.
-bawolff
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l