Re:BitHub = Bitcoin + GitHub. An experiment in funding priva...
by rch on Monday December 16, 2013 @03:19PM
(#6917530)
Why not let the person submitting the request set the value? All the maintainer would have to set is a cap, so no strange values slip by on accident. The value of specific issues and milestones could be determined as a function of the global cap.
Re:BitHub = Bitcoin + GitHub. An experiment in funding priva...
by bdcravens on Monday December 16, 2013 @02:19PM
(#6917126)
Doesn't fix the problem. Actually makes it harder: I shouldn't have this level of management forced on me. Perhaps the repo owner (or whoever manages pull requests) should receive an amount? Obviously this could be abused too.
Re:BitHub = Bitcoin + GitHub. An experiment in funding priva...
by Morgawr on Monday December 16, 2013 @02:21PM
(#6917145)
What do you mean? You are the repo owner and you set up issues with a specific value, then whoever submits a pull request (merged) for those issues automatically gets paid.
Or maybe I didn't properly understand how it works?
Re:BitHub = Bitcoin + GitHub. An experiment in funding priva...
by bdcravens on Monday December 16, 2013 @02:24PM
(#6917170)
I was thinking more along of the lines of sferik's situation, where someone other than the repo owner funded the rewards. I certainly am not interested in paying anyone to improve any of my projects, but if any were valuable, a third party might.
You can't obviously measure it on number of lines changed or something because that doesn't reflect the importance of a change, but maybe just say "okay, I can merge this but you get only 0.0001% because it's just a minor typo" or something like that. And if somebody is trying to abuse the system then just give them 0.
A better way would be to set up issues with bounties (what is already mentioned in the article) so the actual developers can decide the worth of contributions before the contributions are actually made, in order not to do favoritism.