Re: [myhdl-list] Github staging and works in progress

[Henry G. <he...@ca...>]

On 16/07/15 08:54, Jan Decaluwe wrote:
>> On a similar vein, I've sometimes failed to get useful feedback on
>> >specific implementations that are distinctly a work in progress, but
>> >need feedback to proceed. Specifically, issue #68 in which I have
>> >half of a complete implementation for that particular problem. It's
>> >distinctly not PR ready, but is a WIP. I'm somewhat disinclined to
>> >sink any more time into it without some further constructive
>> >feedback, which I attempted to garner without much success.
> Interesting that you mention #68. That can hardly be seen as an
> example where it's difficult to engage me in discussions. The
> problem rather is, that several people seem unwilling to listen
> and unwilling to look at the broader perspective beyond their
> own pet feature.

The problem wasn't #68 per se, but rather there was no route to discuss 
the specific implementation. Now, whether you agree or not the problem 
is worth working on, there is clearly something that is irking people. 
Personally, I don't have much interest in solving #68 - I worked on it 
because I thought it was an interesting problem from a programming 
perspective. I stopped because the one response was a snarky comment 
from you about run time that I was fully aware of and disclosed and 
wasn't really what I was garnering feedback on (the run time issue was 
due to it being a wip and is easy to remove with a little effort).

>> >I feel there is quite a bit that could be done very easily to make
>> >contributors feel more welcome. A mechanism for better and more
>> >patient code collaboration for WIPs would go a long way to this end.
>> >Perhaps if Jan doesn't wish to be involved with this, a second mirror
>> >repository on github could take on that role.
> If it's not clear: my goal is not to make contributors happy. It
> is to have users hate me less. In fact that should be obvious and
> the difference also.
>
> For every mediocre PR that I accept there will be 1 happy contributor
> and hunderds of users that hate me even more.
>
> Moreover, I have had very bad experiences in the past with would-be
> contributors whose self-confidence was much higher than their
> technological skills. In addition to no interest, I simply have no time for
> that anymore. That is a very important pratical limitation which
> everyone should simply respect.

With respect Jan, you can't start out by assuming everyone is 
incompetent, and certainly it is the case that areas of competence are 
not always overlapping. E.g. being a python guru is useful even if the 
person knows nothing about HDL, assuming the skills can be directed 
appropriately - the other skills will be developed along the way.

Even the soft skills, like good management of contributors would be a 
big plus to the project. This isn't Linux, with the huge commercial 
resources backing it and a small army of full time developers to raise 
the contributions bar.

>
> What MyHDL needs most in my opinion is not all kinds of new features.
> It is full of features that are underutilized and the most important
> contribution would be by users publishing about their work. No,
> what it needs is a better and more robust implementation. Even though
> jck has done a tremendous job in this in 0.9, I feel there is still
> a lot that can be done. Such "mundane" hard work gets my first priority
> and respect.
I fully concur with the sentiment, but community building just doesn't 
happen like that. People take an interest and are motivated by their 
personal itch that needs scratching, and then they work on the bigger 
problems as they get sucked in.

Perhaps you're not interested in building a community, but by your own 
admission you're short of time.

> As it now has come to the point when a contributor found it appropriate
> to insult me for not including his mediocre PR #101, I'd like to reconsider
> the whole labeling thing. I fear it may turn the PR area into a dumping
> ground on unfinished and dubious work. Like people that think they
> solve a problem by sending an email. I prefer not to play a role in that.
>
> I prefer the jck model of the past. Very hard work in the background, and
> then I get a PR that is obviously brilliant. Look at those PRs. They are by
> far the most complex contributions till now. Yet it didn't take me
> much time to pull them in.

#101 is a good point to raise. I think jmgc should certainly have been 
more polite in what he wrote, but it's not like you've been carefully 
wordsmithing your criticism of him (or anyone else for that matter).

If you're not willing to take on the burden of interacting on the level 
that is necessary, let others help you. Ruling with an iron fist is all 
good and well, but it rather requires you to engage fully (lest people 
fork or simply bugger off).

Cheers,

Henry