From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12950 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2017 15:26:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 41911 Received: (qmail 12885 invoked by uid 1010); 16 Oct 2017 15:26:20 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from webmail.math.cmu.edu by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(128.2.32.135):SA:0(-0.3/5.0):. Processed in 1.576393 secs); 16 Oct 2017 15:26:20 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: gi1242+zsh@gmail.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:26:12 -0400 From: gi1242+zsh@gmail.com To: Oliver Kiddle Cc: Julien Nicoulaud , Mailing-list zsh-workers Subject: Re: GH:zsh-users/zsh-completions. Message-ID: <20171016152611.GK31613@andrew.cmu.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gi1242+zsh@gmail.com, Oliver Kiddle , Julien Nicoulaud , Mailing-list zsh-workers References: <7240.1507973844@thecus.kiddle.eu> <6529.1508164192@thecus.kiddle.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6529.1508164192@thecus.kiddle.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) 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."