6 ms·
Yup. I think consumers of FOSS rarely understand the amount of effort that goes into maintaining code, whether that is keeping the test infrastructure up to dat
by koito17 3y ago
Yup. I think consumers of FOSS rarely understand the amount of effort that goes into maintaining code, whether that is keeping the test infrastructure up to date, fixing bugs, or adding new features.
In many cases, a large codebase like GNOME will undoubtedly have huge swaths of unmaintained code that doesn't have good test coverage and corresponds to rarely used features of the software. It also becomes a frustrating game of whack-a-mole when attempting to fix bugs in software with inadequate test coverage.
Another infrequently acknowledged point: writing tests isn't simple, it requires you to have thorough understanding of all the moving parts involved. If the current maintainers do not understand the architecture in some obscure corner of the software, then there is a significant upfront cost to expanding existing tests around that code -- time that can be spent improving frequently used parts of the software.
When nobody steps up for maintenance despite welcoming patches and calling for new maintainers, there is simply no reasonable option besides "remove this unmaintained source of bugs that none of the maintainers know how to properly test"
- JoshTriplett 3y agoExactly. Given the nature of Open Source, anyone is free to fork something and say "I'm going to keep maintaining the old thing forever". But that's often not feasible solely with the handful of people and energy of those people interested in a given older technology, especially in a world in which people expect pieces of the ecosystem to cooperate and interoperate with each other. So, instead, the standard tactics are to 1) push people and projects to maintain the old thing for them as long as possible, 2) treat any new technology that doesn't give you free support as a threat, and respond to it with fear, disparaging and attacking the people and projects who are no longer willing to maintain the old thing forever, trying to rally others to pressure them, and 3) disparage and attack technologies that require integration/cooperation between projects, because it raises the bar for the amount of maintenance effort expected. New projects should decide up front, and document very clearly, whether they're willing to offer substantial amounts of maintenance effort on behalf of older or more niche technologies.
- bandrami 3y agoExcept for the guy who tried to do that with Python2 and the Python Foundation threatened legal action
- jeroenhd 3y agoWhen did they do that? All I can find is the Python foundation protecting their trademark. Someone launched "Python 2.8" without any affiliation to the Python Foundation, that's a silly move. Surely everyone in open source learned from the Iceweasel debacle. Something called Tauthon is still being patched every few months for people who can't let go of Python 2.7, though I don't see many contributors to that fork.
- codetrotter 3y ago> Someone launched "Python 2.8" without any affiliation to the Python Foundation, that's a silly move. […] > Something called Tauthon is still being patched every few months for people who can't let go of Python 2.7 I was curious and did a search for Python 2.8 and found: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13144713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13144713 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13159144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13159144 Clicking on the GitHub repo it seems that in fact the project making unauthorised use of the name “Python 2.8” was the one that ended up changing its name to Tauthon. Neat!
- bandrami 3y agoAlso "without any affiliation" is a stretch. He picked up a codebase they abandoned and they got pissy because he kept its name. It was really not a good look.
- adastra22 3y agoThis is more than a little ironic since Python stole its name from a British comedy show.
- 3y ago