3 ms·

So clunky! :D — With 2000 commits per day, I don't think they need more people. I can't even imagine trying to fit that amount of source code change into any ma

So clunky! :D — With 2000 commits per day, I don't think they need more people. I can't even imagine trying to fit that amount of source code change into any management style, let alone one that has little or no gatekeeping. Making the barrier to entry higher is probably only one step to prevent the project from self-immolation.

sverhagen 9y ago
So they're gating developers by their appreciation of the chosen toolset? Wouldn't you rather see them challenged on their programming abilities? Do you suggest a correlation, I find it hard to believe there is one?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >So they're gating developers by their appreciation of the chosen toolset? Wouldn't you rather see them challenged on their programming abilities? No, the former is enough. It shows that whatever their programming abilities they are prone to bike-shedding, so they are better avoided.
  - jo909 9y ago
    Well they are doing both of course, your patch will still get rejected if it's bad, even if you were able to figure out where and how to send it. But it reduces the amount of patches that need to be read and rejected. Also we are arguing backwards here. They don't make it intentionally hard to keep out new contributors, it's just not important in any way to make it simpler. The goal is to make it work best for the thousands of existing contributors, especially the gatekeeping subsystem maintainers.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Also we are arguing backwards here. They don't make it intentionally hard to keep out new contributors, it's just not important in any way to make it simpler. Generally yes, but IIRC Linus has explicitly said that he likes the process being intentionally hard to keep out new contributors.