Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 09:56:39AM -0800, John Gardiner Myers wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Now, maybe me trying to say this wasn't the most helpful thing. I saw
>>> that some of your emails were going unanswered, and wanted to give some
>>> indication that your efforts are appreciated and that your messages are
>>> being read, and try to prompt you to answer some of my questions without
>>> me having to first work out what my questions will be.
>> That does bring up an interesting question: whether it more frustrating
>> to have one's submission summarily ignored or to spend the additional
>> time and effort to have an extended technical discussion with someone
>> who never had the intention of ever committing the submission,
>> regardless of what was said.
> I've never seen Julian's original mail you are quoting.
> Did you post a private conversation to the list?
> Did you ask him for permission first?
I, too, missed this email.
>> As a rational developer, I spend my time and effort contributing to
>> those projects where I get a reasonable return on my investment. Of the
>> three patches I've submitted in the last few months, only one, the least
>> important, has been committed. I guess I'll give up and move on to
>> other projects.
> People here are just as rational as you are.
> If patches get ignored, it does not follow that they will never be
> applied. It just follows that currently, no one has the time to look
> at them. It takes a bit of time to get one's mind into the context
> of the submission, it's not like reviewing a patch takes only 5 minutes.
> Just keep pinging the list (but in a nice way).
To elaborate: we're really close to branching 1.6.x right now, and lots of the
work being done by developers (paid and volunteer) is going toward stabilizing
for that branch. No new features are going into trunk: not patches from outside
contributors, nor patches from committers. If your patch doesn't solve a
pressing issue, it's probably not going to get a lot of attention right now. It
doesn't mean that we've forgotten you, or we don't like the work, or that the
problem isn't real, it just means it's not a top priority right now. *I* have
stuff I'd like to get into trunk, but haven't because of this very issue.
We also have a patch manager, who's sole responsibility is to ensure that
patches don't get forgotten, but filed in the issue tracker. I know it's not as
fun for the instant gratification ideology of the day, but every single one of
those patches gets looked at eventually.
>> I would have submitted a patch to fix the merge tool bug I uncovered,
>> but not while I had two outstanding patches in the area. The Subversion
>> project probably could have benefited from the expertise I gained in
>> automated merging, but it looks like that work will stay local to my
> Please keep submitting whatever you want to submit. I've seen most
> (all?) of you submissions so far and they were all very high quality
> Just because no one here has the time right now to look at them
> does not mean you have to pack up and go away. Give the project
> some time, too. The number of active developers is not as big
> as you think it might be.
>> On the bright side, it's nice to know the Subversion project is
>> sufficiently funded to not want the help of outside developers.
> ... says a guy using said free software in the process of
> developing proprietary software.
> If you can, please shift the entire workforce of your company
> towards Subversion development, it would be very much appreciated.
> Just because some Subversion development is being funded does
> not mean that our developers have unlimited time.
I think what Stefan is trying to say here, albeit a little bluntly, is that most
of the developers are working as hard as they can on the issues that matter most
to them (or their employers). As a community, we appreciate whatever resources
you may be able to share, as long as you realize that it may take a while for
those efforts to bear fruit.
Received on 2009-02-05 21:31:41 CET