3 ms·
It's just laziness. I recently sent the ditz maintainers a patchset for 1.9 compatibility, which they promptly ignored. They aren't on github/bitbucket, so I ha
by swaits 16y ago
It's just laziness. I recently sent the ditz maintainers a patchset for 1.9 compatibility, which they promptly ignored. They aren't on github/bitbucket, so I had to manually diff a copy of the original code against mine in order to create the patch. Then I needed to subscribe to the mailing list and send them the patch. On their end, they would need to run patch to apply my changes. None of this is hard, we've been doing it for a long time.
But at least with github/bitbucket, most of this friction is reduced to a few simple clicks. It's certainly no worse.
- Someone 16y agoIt's just laziness. [...] Then I needed to subscribe to the mailing list and send them the patch. On their end, they would need to run patch to apply my changes. If only things were that simple. A proper maintainer would have to: a) decide whether what this patch claims to do with the code moves the code in a direction where the maintainers want it to move. b) review the code for quality, security concerns and outright backdoors. c) possibly: compare it to a zillion patches that (more or less) claim to do the same. d) assuming the patch is perfect: check with collisions on other pending patches, recently committed changes, etc. I do not know about this project, and have no real expertise as a maintainer, but I am fairly sure it is not "just laziness". If it were, all projects would have an email address that blindly applies each patch sent to it to the code base.
- swaits 16y ago> I do not know about this project, and have no real expertise as a maintainer In my example case, it certainly is. There certainly aren't zillions of patches. The maintainers are just not "maintaining". Plain and simple.