Before I say anything, I want to say to onlookers: Alex, Rich, et al bust their asses to do a thorough job of reviewing patches. Clojure has a stunning good tra

Before I say anything, I want to say to onlookers: Alex, Rich, et al bust their asses to do a thorough job of reviewing patches. Clojure has a stunning good track record of quality, backwards compatibility, and robust design. This is in no small part due to the meticulous contribution process. That being said... > the work involved in all of the steps combined is insignificant compared to the essential work of creating and reviewing the patches. Certainly true for most interesting bug fixes and enhancements. However, I've found that it's not true for a fair number of small issues I encounter on a not-uncommon basis. Most of them escape my memory now, but I've run across issues like docstring typos or the like, and it's just not worth the effort to submit a ticket and patch. This particularly afflicts ClojureScript, where the review process isn't nearly as rigorous. Especially true when ClojureScript lags Clojure, and all the hard problem analysis and design work has been completed on the JVM side of the fence. Often a copy/paste is sufficient to get the work moved over to ClojureScript, in which case the work of creating a Jira ticket dominates the effort to make the change. I don't have a particularly good solution. Part of the problem is learned hatred of JIRA... Anyway, I'll stop looking at this gift horse's mouth.