Re: GH:zsh-users/zsh-completions.

[gi1242+zsh@xxxxxxxxx]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:29:52PM +0200, Oliver Kiddle wrote:

>> I believe a significant part of the contributions we had were because the
>> project is hosted on github It attracts an audience of contributors that
>> are not familiar with the "classic way" (mailing list, IRC, patches, and
>> different process for a each project), and it makes it very easy for
>> "drive-by" contributions and learning by example, which fits well to
>> completions. It also easy to review/provide feedback and iterate on
>> patches (eg: https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-completions/pull/512)
> 
> I'm sure you're right here.
> 
> Does anyone else have views on allowing a github model for completion
> functions? Most of my arguments against github usage don't really
> apply if we're only talking about completions for commands.

My $0.02, since I contributed a completion script recently: I didn't
find clear instructions on contributing on the main web page. I went to
the tracker, and saw a note there. Then I didn't know if I could post to
the list without being subscribed, so I subscribed. Confirmed. And then
I submitted.

That's a lot of steps, and perhaps not everyone will do this.

Perhaps you could have a direct note on the main webpage on your
preferred contribution mechanism? Also allow people to contribute
without subscribing. (Hopefully in a way that doesn't get you insane
amounts of spam.)

Finally, if you're considering the new forking model for people
submitting patches, can I suggest GitLab

    https://about.gitlab.com/

as an alternative to GitHub. Its feature set is comparable to GitHub,
and is completely open source.

GI

PS: Looking through your git logs looks like I sent you a bunch of
    completions in 2011/12. And then nothing until recently. I'll check
    if to see if I have any more local completion improvements that
    might be useful and send them along.

-- 
Marketer to coder: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want."