4 ms·

If a bug fix with test coverage sits in a queue for years, just because the maintainer is an arsehole, then a bit of mild criticism should probably be expected.

If a bug fix with test coverage sits in a queue for years, just because the maintainer is an arsehole, then a bit of mild criticism should probably be expected. Consider it a fixed fork fuck you.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> then a bit of mild criticism should probably be expected No they’ve every right to ignore your PRs for any reason or no reason at all. You aren’t paying them. You can ask them to merge but you’ve got no basis to criticise them because they never promised you anything.
- chris_wot 4y ago
  In that case, I guess forking the project to fix it whilst criticising them is disallowed?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Can I ask you to send me $100 and then criticise you when you don’t? Or is that an unreasonable criticism since why on earth should you send me any money?
    - chris_wot 4y ago
      That’s not unreasonable, if I used your work or wanted a change.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        But it's the other way around - why would you pay someone who was also using your work for free?
        chris_wot 4y ago
        What’s your point? If you have a popular project and you won’t accept a valid patch, a bit of polite criticism isn’t going to hurt you. Happened with the OpenOffice.org project. Caused the fork.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      It is the opposite, the submitter sends a patch aka $100 and then the maintainer rejects the money/patch.
pc86 4y ago
The "just because the maintainer is an arsehole" thing is the question here. How many times is it really just because the maintainer doesn't like the person who submitted it, or they just laugh to themselves and want to see how angry people get? I'd venture a guess to say almost never. The issue becomes when folks assume it's just the maintainer being a jerk rather than any number of completely valid reasons, which could be anything from "PRs from employees and core contributors are prioritized and we can barely handle those as it is" to whole way to "I don't think this feature fits in with my larger vision for the project." It is almost never "just because the maintainer is an arsehole."
- chris_wot 4y ago
  There could never, ever be an Ulrich Drepper who maintained a project the size and importance of glibc in any project, ever.

If a bug fix with test coverage sits in a queue for years, just because the maintainer is an arsehole, then a bit of mild criticism should probably be expected. Consider it a fixed fork fuck you.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> then a bit of mild criticism should probably be expected No they’ve every right to ignore your PRs for any reason or no reason at all. You aren’t paying them. You can ask them to merge but you’ve got no basis to criticise them because they never promised you anything.

chris_wot 4y ago
In that case, I guess forking the project to fix it whilst criticising them is disallowed?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Can I ask you to send me $100 and then criticise you when you don’t? Or is that an unreasonable criticism since why on earth should you send me any money?
  - chris_wot 4y ago
    That’s not unreasonable, if I used your work or wanted a change.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      But it's the other way around - why would you pay someone who was also using your work for free?
      - chris_wot 4y ago
        What’s your point? If you have a popular project and you won’t accept a valid patch, a bit of polite criticism isn’t going to hurt you. Happened with the OpenOffice.org project. Caused the fork.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    It is the opposite, the submitter sends a patch aka $100 and then the maintainer rejects the money/patch.

pc86 4y ago

The "just because the maintainer is an arsehole" thing is the question here. How many times is it really just because the maintainer doesn't like the person who submitted it, or they just laugh to themselves and want to see how angry people get? I'd venture a guess to say almost never. The issue becomes when folks assume it's just the maintainer being a jerk rather than any number of completely valid reasons, which could be anything from "PRs from employees and core contributors are prioritized and we can barely handle those as it is" to whole way to "I don't think this feature fits in with my larger vision for the project." It is almost never "just because the maintainer is an arsehole."

chris_wot 4y ago
There could never, ever be an Ulrich Drepper who maintained a project the size and importance of glibc in any project, ever.