From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E511F4B4 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729012AbhAHTtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:49:42 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65276 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727376AbhAHTtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:49:42 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEEB954CB; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:48:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=0RaNy21+4VUTh9QR2BqAOjCsAfk=; b=G1Xaec opRwvSwwEQpchaT/taQt6GZek2QEEIdew+gSfAdwE5d43NrvTNDc1Xh4HBPCWaF2 cS+ecVD92CTbbe3xjhBnrlJbM8gGHeVlWlZv2X7oJWZINTKvdt5w7zBlaoc+w3v1 D/Vfn5vwoFM8VmMbxPgrvNd5qPszea0SJ0ifw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=bRXDy2ftbNi/D/4yOi6tPehdyD2sV+9j 97iIYxzuf8do3X5w9QbkYNoHTf83eODXNzrpC97S0rXaAWOFjtZTfB+VczAUPvsG bYrGiYN9x8MpKo/aFzW2ziltp9Q9M8WiRgidgnhATJENxxY9w/O+hma2iilnvwNp TH86N/+5Gh0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CD0954C9; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:48:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3D60954C7; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:48:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Nika Layzell via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Nika Layzell Subject: Re: Cc'ing the Git maintainer on GitGitGadget contributions, was Re: [PATCH 0/1] add--interactive: skip index refresh in reset patch mode References: <87wnwordzh.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:48:57 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:56:20 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8C038F9E-51EA-11EB-B7F5-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > But I don't see how that would make this process more inviting to new > contributors. Appearing to be inviting should not be our primary goal. Instead, the goal should be to make it easier to contribute quality patches. By doing so, the smooth experience may attract more new people, which may end up to be "inviting" in the end, but that is as a side effect. > BTW I get the sense that many Git mailing list regulars have this idea > that making the review process easier for one-time contributors would > invite too many low-quality contributions. I don't get such a sense at all. Sure, if GGG or any other mechanism encourages spamming the list with low-quality patches, that may harm our productivity, but that is not what we are doing. And I do not see how it can be a source of low-quality contributions to send patches that by default do not CC them to random people when the sender does not know when it is appropriate to do so. Sure, if the patches asked for attention from appropriate reviewers (the maintainer included), it might get more responses, but we more often review patches that are only sent to the list than those that are sent directly to us via Cc _anyway_. On the other hand, inviting more new people to CC reviewers whose mailboxes are already full when the patches are not yet ready would harm productivity of recipients of such patches. One attribute of a quality patch is that it is CC'ed to the right people and at the right time.