Recently I tried to commit some contributions to Krita project. I myself see my success as comparatively moderate. My current strategy so far has been to pick some task from Krita bug database and work on the fix. I was however very surprised to discover that some code reviewers openly question the need and rationale of working on these issues. I am not attached to them either; I picked them from the bug list and do not have interest in force pushing through if others prefer not.

Do we currently have a strategy, on what the new developers should concentrate, what is not the most important? Where and how should they pick they tasks? If we do, where is this documented? Ideally we should have a list of priority tasks but I understand it is a work to maintain such as tasks get done and others emerge instead. But maybe at least a list of "hot directions" could be provided.

It is not a fun to work a couple of days on a merge request and get the answer "this is a niche feature we do not want". It is also harm for Krita project as well, because this time could have been spent on something else.

Talk on IRC first! (There's also a matrix bridge...) Communicate, ask questions, tell us what you want to do, why and how. We were really put out because we couldn't go all "Yay!!!" over your merge requests. Sometimes people do come up with merge requests that are all right, but in this case, prior discussion would've saved a lot of discussion and time.

Ok understand.