On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 12:29 -0500, Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:
> Jeremy Pereira wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2006, at 19:36, Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:
> >> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >>> On Mar 3, 2006, at 16:34, Mike Conley wrote:
> >>>> I agree completely, and it's a shame. Anyone else who agrees should
> >>>> go an add votes to #707; I have no idea if they ever get paid any
> >>>> attention, but I don't imagine it can hurt.
> >>> The developers have previously stated that they do not pay attention
> >>> to votes.
> >> It seems kind of unfortunate that the developers maintain this attitude.
> >> What exactly do they pay attention to?
> > As they are, for the most part, volunteers I think they pay attention to
> > the things they find interesting.
> So basically you're saying the developers don't find making their
> software usable interesting? That is interesting in of itself.
No, we just don't pay attention to random votes on random issues.
This is pretty typical of most projects. We aren't paid to do so, after
If the issue really concerns you, either implement it, or pay someone to
do it for you!
> > If you don't like it, perhaps you could ask for your money back :-)
> Yawn. When are people going to learn that saying that makes you look
> silly. I'd, and probably a number of more serious users, would gladly
> pay someone to improve a number of problems in Subversion that the
> developers "don't seem to find interesting", but I don't see any
> developers lining up.
Err, there are people you can pay to consult and implement features for
you in subversion.
> >> Would they even accept a patch if someone went off and implemented this?
> > Provided it meets the subversion quality standards.
> > Read the HACKING file in the source distribution.
> Clearly you haven't looked at this in a while, because it says to look
> at http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html. This document is very
> vague as to the process by which a patch is actually accepted. As far
> as it describes, submitting a patch is no more likely to make the
> developers accept it than voting will make them pay attention to an
> outstanding issue.
There is never a guarantee that any patch will be accepted, unless you
have the authority to commit it yourself. If you are looking for
someone to guarantee that if you implement something, it will be
accepted, you are out of luck.
However, in general, if it what the community wants, unless there is
something fundamentally flawed with it, it will be committed.
This is the way of the world. Red Hat, for example, has been
contracting this way for years (the contracts state they will make the
best efforts to get the patch into the main source code for the package
in question, but there are no guarantees).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Mar 6 17:17:36 2006