Re: Small idea to be more positive towards new contributors

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 17:50 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:36:01PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > I think that we should rename the "needs-work" patch status to
> > something more positive, and less disheartening for contributors.
> >
> > "feedback-given" is an alternative which I quite like.
> >
> > Good idea?
>
> There is already "reviewed" which is more positive and more generic.

No, "reviewed" is "I'd set this as accepted-commit_now" but I'm not the
maintainer".

> "rejected" is even more negative.
>
> "feedback-given" or "reviewed" are almost the same.
>
> The difference between "needs-work", "rejected" or "reviewed" is small.
> If you ask the exact definition of each keyword to some developers, I
> think you'll get different answers.

I'm not sure that's the case. At least not for developers of the core
parts of GNOME.

> I think "reviewed" or "needs-work" can always be used instead of
> "rejected". If a patch is "rejected" without requiring more work, it
> means that the bug should be closed as WONTFIX.

No, it means that the patch is completely wrong. The only time we see
this is when somebody says "hey, this is broken, so I added a
configuration option to work-around the problem". In that case, you want
to put your foot down, because it's not a question of a memory leak, or
a missing brace.

> So maybe only "reviewed" can be kept. The reviewer should anyway write
> comments to explain what is wrong.
>
> (yes, WONTFIX is also a bit negative :-)

One step at a time.