On 26/12/2022 4:57 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
> I agree that the friction cannot be reduced to zero. I still think it is probably possible to reduce it to, say, 50% of its current amount, without compromising on quality.

Here is a big one: remove the damn style checkers!

Automatic format on PR and commit right back into remote branch.

Problem solved. No more CI errors.

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 04:06:05 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 26/12/2022 4:57 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> I agree that the friction cannot be reduced to zero. I still think it is probably possible to reduce it to, say, 50% of its current amount, without compromising on quality.
>
> Here is a big one: remove the damn style checkers!
>
> Automatic format on PR and commit right back into remote branch.
>
> Problem solved. No more CI errors.

I'd like to interject here to please ask everyone who has any ideas or suggestions on specific steps we can take to improve the contribution process to please do as I asked and email them to me so that I can easily keep track of them.

On 12/25/2022 7:57 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
> I agree that the friction cannot be reduced to zero. I still think it is probably possible to reduce it to, say, 50% of its current amount, without compromising on quality.

It's that people reach intractable positions, not that they're arguing about off-topic things.

On 26/12/2022 9:34 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 7:57 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> I agree that the friction cannot be reduced to zero. I still think it is probably possible to reduce it to, say, 50% of its current amount, without compromising on quality.
> 
> It's that people reach intractable positions, not that they're arguing about off-topic things.

Sounds an awful lot like more compromises need to be made on the things people don't care about ;)

For instance: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/14669

Do we really need to guarantee a compiler specific pragma has to "just work" on any function and not find another solution?

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 01:30:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 4:12 PM, claptrap wrote:
>> If someone says "I find this process incredibly frustrating" and you reply "but you have 100% success rate, and that's better than me", you are firstly telling them that they are wrong to feel the way they do, and that secondly you have it worse.
>
> Or asking for an explanation.

"I dont understand why you feel that way could you explain more"

That's asking for an explanation.

"The nearly 100% track record of successful contributions is at odds with it being impossible to contribute. Their successful PR rate is better than mine. I don't know what to say."

That is telling people they are wrong. (plus a strawman). Plus the "I dont know what to say" implies frustration at the complaint rather that interest.

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 01:29:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 1. quality
> 2. cost
> 3. time
>
> Pick two.

Cost, time

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 08:34:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/25/2022 7:57 PM, Paul Backus wrote:
>> I agree that the friction cannot be reduced to zero. I still think it is probably possible to reduce it to, say, 50% of its current amount, without compromising on quality.
>
> It's that people reach intractable positions, not that they're arguing about off-topic things.

In your experience, do these discussions typically end once an impasse has been reached, or do they continue to go in circles until all parties have exhausted themselves?

My impression is that many fall into the latter category. Having a moderator cut these fruitless arguments off at the legs would prevent a lot of unnecessary frustration.

I'm hoping to see this improve, Razvan does an amazing job as PR manager so far which has been a real boost to getting stuff in.

On 25/12/2022 7:57 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
> When the specification is lacking, it is not clear what code is valid. In the case of -mv, the spec says (or rather implies) package.module=path/filename, but the implementation also allows package=path, which I find reasonable and rely upon. If the implementaion gets 'fixed' to conform to the specification, I will be very unhappy.

Stuff like this its pretty clear that the specification is the one that needs fixing, not the implementation.

Do a PR, then you won't have to worry about this going forward ;)

On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 13:48:29 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:

>
> Do a PR, then you won't have to worry about this going forward ;)

Complaining is more fun :)