Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc: add another way to identify if a patch has been merged

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 09:01:13 -0700

Kaartic Sivaraam <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 10:46 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> Actually I am slightly negative on this one, because of
>> occurrences like [1].
>> 
>> Our SubmittingPatches is already considered *too long* for most people
>> who just want to drop a drive-by patch.
>> 
>> Adding more knowledge (which btw is about general git usage and not
>> specific to our development workflow; you'd find the same tip in the
>> kernel community).
>> 
>> I wonder if we need a document that describes workflows.
>> (Oh, look we have 'man gitworkflows'! I did not know)
>> 
>> So maybe we want to cut a lot of workflow related commendatory from
>> the SubmitingPatches and then encourage to read such man page?
>> 
> That's right. Maybe Documentation/SubmittingPatches needs a revamp to
> be one-time contributor friendly? Maybe introducing a "gist" for people
> who do not have the time to read the whole document, might be of help?

First of all, I do not think lack of one-time contributor is
something we should consider to be a problem.  Supporting new
contributors so that they will be involved more in the development
process is a lot more important issue.

A new contributor will get something wrong no matter what the
documentation says.  One-time contributor's intention is "I am
sending a patch this time, but I have no plan to get involved
further---I do not have time for this".  It ridiculous to ask for a
patch that adds an 's' to the end of a third-party-singular verb in
the present tense to be rerolled only because the title had an extra
full-stop at the end.  Practically, a patch like that by a "one time
contributor" will always have to be fixed before committing it.

I think the exchange Stefan cited was an example that we want to
have more of.  The contributor is indicating that, even though the
patch could be a drive-by patch by one-timer from whom we will never
hear again, it is not--the contributor is willing to learn the way
things are done here, and showing that it is worth _our_ time to
explain the things so that the future patches will take less effort
to accept on our side.

Because we do not have a group of dedicated volunteers, it is done
by more experienced people around here but that can be done only
when they have time.  I view it as a more severe problem than any
documentation.  An abbreviated version of the documentation to
invite more new people means that we must be prepared to give more
high-touch onboarding help to them.