4 ms·
The tone might be off but it seems like a perfectly valid question. If most users have wanted X for years but the developer instead spent her energy implementi
by vntok 6y ago
The tone might be off but it seems like a perfectly valid question.
If most users have wanted X for years but the developer instead spent her energy implementing Y and Z that noone else cares about, that begs questions like how are features prioritized ("based on what I want to work on" is a valid answer but needs to be explicit) and who the software is for ("me but sure you guys can tag along and use it for free I guess" is a valid answer but needs to be explicit)
Maybe some of those users who have wanted feature X for years would be happy to pool some cash to make it happen if given the opportunity.
- rorykoehler 6y agoWe do exactly that with our customers. Here is our roadmap but if you must have feature x you can pay us to prioritise it and get it sooner. It’s a great way to filter wants from needs.
- vntok 6y agoYes it's the decent thing to do. Building a tool that works juuuuust enough for people to set it up and start relying on it, and then never ever fixing the most salient and impactful bugs because "people aren't entitled anything after all" is just wrong. It would be much more honest to state up front that said tool should not be relied on for any use beyond one's hobby, that it will not be supported, and that the whole package is just "up there" for anyone interested, without any guarantee. And no, having that written in the default LICENSE file is not sufficient.
- a1369209993 6y ago> is a valid answer but needs to be explicit Honestly, it doesn't even need to be explicit, they just need to not be actively implying otherwise. (Eg, like gnome/gtk from the sibling thread.)