3 ms·
It's not just you. Requiring copyright assignment is a powerful way to put the brakes on community involvement by itself, but couple that with a policy of "noth
by technomancy 16y ago
It's not just you. Requiring copyright assignment is a powerful way to put the brakes on community involvement by itself, but couple that with a policy of "nothing gets applied until the BDFL personally approves it" and things can get frustrating. I've had bugs with perfectly viable patches linger in the issue tracker for 3-4 months before getting applied. In some cases the original author of the library even personally approved the patch, but it still had to wait for the thumbs up.
Hopefully this will improve with the creation of the Clojure/core group. Having every commit need to be approved by a single person is absolutely unsustainable in the long run, and we're definitely already at to the point where it's causing issues.
That said, it certainly doesn't stop me from using Clojure every day; it just makes me prefer decentralization (using 3rd-party libraries rather than contrib, for example) where possible.
- technomancy 16y agoI should add that having Rich review every single commit is very appropriate for some parts of Clojure: I wouldn't want people committing to the STM mechanism or to the implementation of clojure.lang.PersistentVector without his approval. And for a long time Clojure almost entirely consisted of this kind of code--stuff that's really hard to get right. But now it's had more more pedestrian nuts-and-bolts kind of libraries added like clojure.test and clojure.main. These are included out of necessity, but they are very easy to understand and fairly easy to patch and improve as well. It would be reasonable if the original authors were allowed to improve them and accept patches from the community for them even after they've been promoted from contrib.