4 ms·
Dude is missing the complicated parts: Check whom to to report the changes. Check how to write your commit message, with or without Changelog. Subscribe to s
by rurban 5y ago
Dude is missing the complicated parts:
Check whom to to report the changes.
Check how to write your commit message, with or without Changelog.
Subscribe to some mailing list (because free software is stone age)
Post your patches. You are told to sign your copyright papers.
Ask the clerk to send you the copyright papers.
Fill out the assignment request, what you did.
Wait for the assignment PDF.
Print the PDF after you've received it, sign it, scan it, send it back. In most countries via snail mail.
Wait a week or two.
Check the change requests and reviews from the mailing list. People are picky, esp. free software people.
Rebase rebase rebase.
If you are lucky you are in after some time, and your code doesn't belong too you anymore.
- jka 5y agoWhat project(s) did you experience those steps with? They can all make sense under varying circumstances, I'd be happy to take a look at some of them to bear them in mind (sometimes projects can be encouraged to move to more streamlined processes, even when it requires careful planning and a long time).
- rurban 5y agoFSF projects of course
- jmkjaer 5y agoI understood the intent of it being just a local change and not submitted. You're right that submitting it would be a bit more involved, and other people would probably protest, since the prompt was added deliberately, so why not just keep it local?
- Mc91 5y ago> Subscribe to some mailing list (because free software is stone age) Doing free software via e-mail is also fairly decentralized. In fact Linux was done via e-mail until (at least) 1998 - patches were mailed to Linus and it was patch and diff (in 1999 VA Linux and Red Hat IPO'd). Debian was very e-mail oriented last time I checked, unless things changed in the past year or two. There may be drawbacks to software via e-mail but there are benefits as well. It depends on various factors.
- asddubs 5y agoor just submit a pull request, of which 7/8 have been merged for this project https://github.com/hboetes/mg/pulls https://github.com/hboetes/mg/pulls although it seems the author didn't do that either
- eternityforest 5y agoWhat project has all that? A lot of stuff is just: Make a GitHub pull request Fix whatever the project owner doesn't like in said PR Done GitHub makes FOSS no longer stone age.
- marginalia_nu 5y agoGitHub also makes FOSS rent its web presence from Microsoft.
- gaius_baltar 5y ago> GitHub makes FOSS no longer stone age. Until GH or Microsoft does dislikes the project and kills it, with all the PRs, bug reports, etc. Email makes things safer.
- legobmw99 5y agoEmacs isn’t too far off from this (I don’t think there are signed PDFs involved though)
- rurban 5y agoFree software hates GitHub and Gitlab. Because it's non-free
- RealStickman_ 5y agoGitlab is open core, so basic functions you get with the free tier can be self hosted.
- eternityforest 5y agoGitHub is nonfree but it's just a UI for git. If it disappears or goes in the chamberpot, everyone can go to GitLab or self host. At most people would lose the issues. It also doesn't handle sensitive data(It's all public!) and it can't really change stuff easily without messing up the hashes and making it quickly noticeable. Although I suppose on a large project it could slip in commits nobody would notice. Even the actions bot is open source!