3 ms·

What did Wayne say when you proposed to make these changes to RVM itself? It seems like if you wanted to make the pie bigger, and you just want ideas versus ego

What did Wayne say when you proposed to make these changes to RVM itself? It seems like if you wanted to make the pie bigger, and you just want ideas versus egos to rule then you could've proposed to improve RVM.

petercooper 15y ago
Why assume he did? There's no law or even expectation that you can't create new projects. Not everyone is gifted at the diplomacy or negotiation required to work on existing projects. And, of course, many people want to have their "own" projects. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If everything was just an improvement of something old..
- mauricio 15y ago
  There's no law for many things in this world, but there certainly are expectations. There are many projects with widespread use that have become core projects in the Ruby community (Rails, bundler, RVM, etc). It's reasonable to expect that issues or design decisions get discussed on the project mailing list before you try and divide the community.
  - petercooper 15y ago
    It's at least no more divisive than to have Passenger vs Thin vs Unicorn vs Heroku vs WEBrick vs Pow for the serving end of things. Or RSpec vs Test::Unit vs MiniTest vs Shoulda vs Riot for testing. Good things have come out of all of these additions and they were not all fuelled by discussions. In any case, to defend against claims like yours (which are common, it seems), it does seem wise for anyone wishing to create something new to post to existing mailing lists with their ideas. Once the maintainers say "No" to your idea to rip out 90% of their system, you can then create your new project and have the valuable mailing list link to say "Look, I tried."
technomancy 15y ago
> you just want ideas versus egos to rule then you could've proposed to improve RVM. One of the features I noticed from rbenv is that it does less than RVM. This is a good thing, but proposing this improvement to RVM would essentially be asking the maintainer to remove features.
- mauricio 15y ago
  Certainly. Sometimes changes are just too major to bring back upstream and a new project is warranted. It just seems like Wayne was blind-sided by all of it.
- PatrickTulskie 15y ago
  People had similar complaints about Rails and now it's pretty modular and flexible with what you include/exclude. A proposal for RVM to be more modular with what it does to your shell would have probably been well received.
bonzoesc 15y ago
Open-source software is about making software, not about staking claims to product areas and stroking egos. Linux Torvalds didn't ask for Andrew Tanenbaum's opinion before releasing Linux, and John Resig didn't send Sam Stephenson a pull request for Prototype before releasing JQuery.

petercooper 15y ago

Why assume he did? There's no law or even expectation that you can't create new projects. Not everyone is gifted at the diplomacy or negotiation required to work on existing projects. And, of course, many people want to have their "own" projects. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If everything was just an improvement of something old..

mauricio 15y ago
There's no law for many things in this world, but there certainly are expectations. There are many projects with widespread use that have become core projects in the Ruby community (Rails, bundler, RVM, etc). It's reasonable to expect that issues or design decisions get discussed on the project mailing list before you try and divide the community.
- petercooper 15y ago
  It's at least no more divisive than to have Passenger vs Thin vs Unicorn vs Heroku vs WEBrick vs Pow for the serving end of things. Or RSpec vs Test::Unit vs MiniTest vs Shoulda vs Riot for testing. Good things have come out of all of these additions and they were not all fuelled by discussions. In any case, to defend against claims like yours (which are common, it seems), it does seem wise for anyone wishing to create something new to post to existing mailing lists with their ideas. Once the maintainers say "No" to your idea to rip out 90% of their system, you can then create your new project and have the valuable mailing list link to say "Look, I tried."

technomancy 15y ago

> you just want ideas versus egos to rule then you could've proposed to improve RVM. One of the features I noticed from rbenv is that it does less than RVM. This is a good thing, but proposing this improvement to RVM would essentially be asking the maintainer to remove features.

mauricio 15y ago
Certainly. Sometimes changes are just too major to bring back upstream and a new project is warranted. It just seems like Wayne was blind-sided by all of it.
PatrickTulskie 15y ago
People had similar complaints about Rails and now it's pretty modular and flexible with what you include/exclude. A proposal for RVM to be more modular with what it does to your shell would have probably been well received.

bonzoesc 15y ago

Open-source software is about making software, not about staking claims to product areas and stroking egos. Linux Torvalds didn't ask for Andrew Tanenbaum's opinion before releasing Linux, and John Resig didn't send Sam Stephenson a pull request for Prototype before releasing JQuery.