3 ms·
True. I should have written "might not have the inclination to invite unvetted strangers into the development process". Having a relatively high bar for partic
by quesera 12y ago
True. I should have written "might not have the inclination to invite unvetted strangers into the development process".
Having a relatively high bar for participation (email Wietse, courteously, and suggest some useful modifications, and offer to work on them) seems like a completely valid filter process to me.
It takes a special kind of personality to be the public facing patch czar of a hugely popular open source project that runs everywhere with elevated privileges and firewall rules set to allow direct connections from anywhere.
Perhaps Wietse has decided that's not the life he wants to live.
- ef4 12y agoAgain, none of that is precluded by a read-only public VCS. The process of discussing changes and patches on the mailing list can still be identical if that's what they like. People seem to be equating "expose some VCS" with "run a github-style repo where anybody can stick pull requests into your queue". The two are not the same. It is entirely reasonable to ask an open source project to stop hiding useful information that they already have and could share at zero cost.
- quesera 12y agoI disagree about the usefulness of seeing code in progress. The inter-release diffs aren't very large, typically. I read them all, carefully. Why would Wietse want to have a public conversation about unfinished work? He's not looking for help.
- ef4 12y ago>The inter-release diffs aren't very large, typically. But they're much bigger than the individual commits, and so if something breaks in release X, I can ponder the whole diff or I can bisect the history and ponder a handful of lines.