In any case: how does "there are stringent conditions if you want to help in directly coding" equals "we're stringent about newcomers"? It doesn't. Period. I EXPLICITLY said this time it wasn't about (filing patches with) JIRA, so one can't reproach me that again.
People should stop acting as if I step on a wasps' nest, when I mention that there are conditions set to particular ways of help (aka, the direct coding which is explained further on that jobpage). The conditions are there, and it makes sense to point people to it which could qualify to that, without suggarcoating it. I clearly said it's not about JIRA or other help. I'm getting tired of always having to mention this everytime a potential capable person who could qualify for direct coding comes by, and each time I refer to that page, it's like I've said something improper.
You do realize that "directly coding" does not equate "getting a job with the Foundation" in the minds of me, Victor, Amine, and a lot of other people? That from our perspective, directly coding equates code contribution of any kind, whether it be via patches or getting commit access as a volunteer developer? And that we also find it inappropriate for you to try to direct people who are new to the project, regardless of their formal qualifications from the past, to the jobs page when all they're asking about is how to provide initial contributions because it creates a false impression that the only way to contribute is to apply for a job and therefore they need to meet those standards right away? And the way you keep bringing it up carries the undertone of "we're really picky about the patches we accept so you need to get it right to have it accepted" which then discourages someone from even trying? Because if you really can't see that, then consider this us notifying you that that's the impression we keep getting from you. We're not asking you to stop on a whim, we're asking you to stop because you are potentially doing harm to the project with the way you fixate on what you think are "stringent conditions." And adding qualifiers to your statements does not constitute stopping the statements that we consider problematic.
How is filing potential patches with JIRA DIRECT coding? There is nothing direct to it, because it's first FILED (aka, one does not change the code directly), then it's analysed by the devs, then recommendations are done, and then if good enough, the devs apply it.
It's so evident that this can't be placed under 'direct coding', that it's bordering on the ludicrous to try to argument filing patches to JIRA would fall under that. And this is further demonstrated on the jobpage, where the coding one talks about there, has nothing to do with JIRA on itself. So, you know, maybe you, Amine, etc. do not equate it with what is described on the jobpage (though I would like to see something closer than that to 'direct coding', then), but it sure as hell should be clear that it's not filing things with JIRA. There is no way one can reasonably interpret it that way, unless one *wants* to interpret it that way.
And if what you say in your last sentences is true, than pointing to the jobpage and saying that if they would want to have a go at direct coding, they can, as long as they fulfil certain conditions, to people who can qualify for it, is deemed to be 'harmful to the project', and 'problematic'. This is quite mindboggling. Why would that be harmful, when it's PART of ROS, and why wouldn't it be harmful then, when I said you can choose VM testing or HW testing? There are certain conditions you need too, there, namely for HW testing a rig which runs ROS, and preferably a serial cable for debugging purposes. However, I don't see you claim that me saying that is 'harmful' or 'problematic', or are afraid it will 'scare away' people. Or that they might think I said they can't help in any other way, like make a donation. Why is that? Because it would make little sense; it's just stating the facts, and saying one can do a certain thing under certain conditions, does not imply that one can't do anything else. As I am with 'direct coding'. And if you don't understand the same under it (though I think I made it perfectly clear what should be understood about it), feel free to tell me what specific term you use for what I'm using with 'direct coding'. I'll use that term, then.
@imk: don't worry about it. It's just something that comes up now and then. The point is, I feel strongly that people who might qualify for it (who can code) should be made aware that there is the possibility, if they ever want to do it, for direct coding. It's, of course, no obligation, it's just making someone aware of it. An example of that is viewable on the jobpage, however, it doesn't mean you HAVE to go for a job to do that. There are, however, some stringent conditions for it, but it would be certainly welcomed if you wanted to give it a try. Some people here always act up when I say that. For some reason, they think people like you won't understand that it's NOT an obligation, or that you might misconstrue it as meaning you can't give ANY other help, except if you fulfil those stringent conditions. That you couldn't even file a patch in JIRA, or help testing, or such. Frankly, I think they're basically treating you guys as idiots or wussies, if they really think that you would not understand the difference, or would be 'scared away' by me saying that. Treating people like that, certainly with IT credentials and of normal intelligence, is unreasonable, imho. But hey, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Answer me this honestly: did I gave the impression to you, you couldn't help in any other way, unless you applied for a job under strict conditions? Was I scaring you away and being unhelpful? Did you read in what I said to you "we're really picky about the patches we accept so you need to get it right to have it accepted", as is claimed?
Maybe in six months I'll look at getting into some bug fixes or patches for ReactOS, maybe even write a device driver for my own hardware etc.
That would actually be wonderful.
and maybe applicable to other hardware too.
But indeed, HW testing is fine, and you certainly do not need to feel rushed. Just know if you want and feel the vibes again and go for the C/C++ coding, you can help in that way too. I'm happy to note you want to be a HW tester; we really need as much as possible, since there are not that many.