3 ms·
It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact. Well, if you've ever tried to contribute to open sour
by ktRolster 11y ago
It's not like it's a commonplace attitude to object to high-quality new features with no negative impact.
Well, if you've ever tried to contribute to open source projects, I think you'll find that it actually is commonplace. For example, I eventually gave up even trying to commit bug fixes to Android, because the pain wasn't worth it.
- fapjacks 11y agoThis is dead-on. It seems actually the majority of open source projects are driven by politics.
- gkya 11y agoWherever there's human interaction, there will be politics. On the other hand, even tho the code submitted is of high quality and good, it may have negative social effects on the projects: the feature may be out of the scope, the project owner(s) might want to make sure that the author of the patch will be there to support it because they don't have the expertise, etc. For example if I was maintaining a web server and you submitted a default mime.types file, I'd hesistate to take the patch if you said you wouldn't be able to support it, because I know nothing of MIME (sorry for the silly example).
- fapjacks 11y agoNo, it's not silly. What you said makes sense. I am referring however instead to meeting resistance in a project because something I've done or said doesn't line up with the already dug-in political interests that often exist in open source projects. I don't want to name names, but I can think of specific large projects (a couple of household names) that operate in this manner. Argue with a core dev about anything, and your PRs will get closed without any discussion. It sucks.