3 ms·

Of course it was: there is nothing preventing a company from contacting the dev team and going "we've one quite a bit of work, are you interested in getting any

Of course it was: there is nothing preventing a company from contacting the dev team and going "we've one quite a bit of work, are you interested in getting any of that upstreamed". Getting changes upstreamed is in no way the exclusive domain of fully open source projects, it just requires reaching out. Just because there's a closed development model doesn't automatically imply the devs team lives and breathes "not-invented-here"-ism and are no interested in discussing improvements that make a difference to actual people using Lua in (extremely) large real world products.

samatman 2y ago
It was not a general statement, but rather, a specific one. > Lua is not "open developed". The development is done exclusively by the Lua team, at PUC-Rio. So, we do not need a SVN repository. Currently, we keep Lua with the good old RCS. - Roberto Ierusalimschy http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2007-09/msg00476.html http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2007-09/msg00476.html
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  Yes, I know, that was my point too: it's closed development and so you can talk to the dev team to get changes worked into Lua itself. You don't get to just open a PR and start thigns that way, you have to talk to people. And going "well we didn't contact them" when you're the size of Roblox would be incredible.
  - drekipus 2y ago
    > The development is done exclusively by the Lua team, at PUC-Rio. So, we do not need a SVN repository. If I had this as my message, and someone asked to ship changes, I would be more than mad. just take the L dude.
    - TheRealPomax 2y ago
      What a ridiculous thing to say. If you ran, or were part of, an academically run project, "you'd get mad" if a huge industry player went "hey we did some stuff with your project, some of it might be interesting to you, want to chat about potential upstreaming?" really, dude?
      - drekipus 2y ago
        Yes, because that is more burden to ensure that it still fits my purpose, the intended goals, and that whoever it is, is doing it properly. Which would be the whole reason I would put such a statement there, in the first place. What are you even trying to argue with now? That I'm not allowed to get angry in the hypothetical that I made up? Do you see why it's fruitless to continue arguing? Or are you going to pick out some prior wording and analyse it further, because you just can't comprehend that corporations don't have best interests at heart, and some people prefer to just put things up and not deal with other people's improvements
  - HaroldCindy 2y ago
    Any upstreaming was unlikely to ever be acceptable to the PUC-Rio folks. PUC-Rio Lua uses C (with a tiny bit of C++ for stack unwinding on errors if folks don't want to use `longjmp()`,) Luau is strictly C++. Luau rewrites quite a lot of the core structures, and they aren't compatible. Further, Luau is a fork of PUC-Rio Lua _5.1_ (the current is 5.4 I think?) and intentionally picks and chooses features from later Lua versions. Even things like improvements to the core VM interpreter loop wouldn't be upstreamable, because Lua 5.2+ has a fundamentally different model to allow for yielding in metamethods. PUC-Rio would not accept changes other than fixes for critical bugs in Lua 5.1. I like both PUC-Rio Lua and Luau, but a hard fork with no upstreaming was the only option here. The architectural differences of the VMs are so large now that it would amount to PUC-Rio adopting Luau. Supposing there is some tiny bit that PUC-Rio is interested in, they can cherry-pick it out of Luau, since they use the same license.

samatman 2y ago

It was not a general statement, but rather, a specific one. > Lua is not "open developed". The development is done exclusively by the Lua team, at PUC-Rio. So, we do not need a SVN repository. Currently, we keep Lua with the good old RCS. - Roberto Ierusalimschy http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2007-09/msg00476.html http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2007-09/msg00476.html

TheRealPomax 2y ago
Yes, I know, that was my point too: it's closed development and so you can talk to the dev team to get changes worked into Lua itself. You don't get to just open a PR and start thigns that way, you have to talk to people. And going "well we didn't contact them" when you're the size of Roblox would be incredible.
- drekipus 2y ago
  > The development is done exclusively by the Lua team, at PUC-Rio. So, we do not need a SVN repository. If I had this as my message, and someone asked to ship changes, I would be more than mad. just take the L dude.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    What a ridiculous thing to say. If you ran, or were part of, an academically run project, "you'd get mad" if a huge industry player went "hey we did some stuff with your project, some of it might be interesting to you, want to chat about potential upstreaming?" really, dude?
    - drekipus 2y ago
      Yes, because that is more burden to ensure that it still fits my purpose, the intended goals, and that whoever it is, is doing it properly. Which would be the whole reason I would put such a statement there, in the first place. What are you even trying to argue with now? That I'm not allowed to get angry in the hypothetical that I made up? Do you see why it's fruitless to continue arguing? Or are you going to pick out some prior wording and analyse it further, because you just can't comprehend that corporations don't have best interests at heart, and some people prefer to just put things up and not deal with other people's improvements
- HaroldCindy 2y ago
  Any upstreaming was unlikely to ever be acceptable to the PUC-Rio folks. PUC-Rio Lua uses C (with a tiny bit of C++ for stack unwinding on errors if folks don't want to use `longjmp()`,) Luau is strictly C++. Luau rewrites quite a lot of the core structures, and they aren't compatible. Further, Luau is a fork of PUC-Rio Lua _5.1_ (the current is 5.4 I think?) and intentionally picks and chooses features from later Lua versions. Even things like improvements to the core VM interpreter loop wouldn't be upstreamable, because Lua 5.2+ has a fundamentally different model to allow for yielding in metamethods. PUC-Rio would not accept changes other than fixes for critical bugs in Lua 5.1. I like both PUC-Rio Lua and Luau, but a hard fork with no upstreaming was the only option here. The architectural differences of the VMs are so large now that it would amount to PUC-Rio adopting Luau. Supposing there is some tiny bit that PUC-Rio is interested in, they can cherry-pick it out of Luau, since they use the same license.