[lloeki]

> I'm firmly convinced that having to learn something as straightforward and well documented as golang's contributor flow is a pretty good litmus test for potential contributors.

It's just as much a litmus test of how much time you have in your hands to spend and space in your head to stuff peripheral stuff in. If you did not notice, there was a workshop about how to contribute to Go since, in contrast with its design and philosophy, it has a contribution method as convoluted as for Android/CyanogenMOD/LineageOS, which only makes the ridiculousness of it all the more poignant.

> Using a programming langauge does not make you a compiler hacker

Again, there is much more to Go than just the compiler, which is only a fraction of src. What if I want to contribute a substantial fix or improvement to say net/mail[0]? Or the documentation? Besides, how ludicrous is that a contributor wannabe should have to prove {him,her}self worthy of contributing by passing a supposed test entirely unrelated to the contribution {s,}he's intending to make?

Trivial fixes should be trivial to submit just as well as complex ones to review, and not require anyone to bang its head against an artificial wall.

[0]: https://golang.org/src/net/mail/message.go

[Sir_Cmpwn]

>It's just as much a litmus test of how much time you have in your hands to spend and space in your head to stuff peripheral stuff in.

If you don't have time to learn Gerrit (which is not a difficult tool to learn), then you probably don't have time to be a good contributor - responding to patch feedback, engaging in discussion, and maintaining your changes in the future should issues arise.

>there was a workshop about how to contribute to Go since

Just going to append my own conclusion to this sentence:

>since the entitled GitHub generation of programmers can't be arsed to spend 10 minutes learning any proper tooling