4 ms·
I disagree here, but only within the confines of the language I used. A maintainer of open source code is willingly submitting their own work to be used for fre
by zpallin 7y ago
I disagree here, but only within the confines of the language I used. A maintainer of open source code is willingly submitting their own work to be used for free by others. They have no responsibility to extend it at all, but to maintain it is to do so in the interest of the users... they have a responsibility to do it to the best of their ability, and if not, the maintenance should be given to someone who will.
- HorstG 7y agoNo. Just no. They may do so to the worst of their abilities. Thats their prerogative. The only limit might be publishing something that is actively intended to do harm. But I can't imagine a plausible example of that...
- zpallin 7y agoYou might not believe this, but I agree with you! Doing something to the best of your ability includes the right to be able to suck at it also. I am pressing for absolutely no standard of quality, yet you somehow think that's the case. It's not. I just think that if you're going to call yourself a maintainer of something, then you better at least pretend.
- HorstG 7y agoI disagree. I really think doing an intentionally crappy job is acceptable. Not even pretend. I think it is okay to really half-arse it. Or break it. Or be lazy. Or whatever. Except maybe intentionally harm someone.
- zpallin 7y agoIntentionally doing a crappy job is harmful. And if you're intentionally doing any of the things you listed above, then you're not a maintainer. That simply is not what maintaining means.