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@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013-03-08 2:20 PM, "Bartosz DziewoĆski" matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:07:18 +0100, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l