> > I'd much rather see nREPL stay within contrib and the renewed effort, that > you propose, to go into ironing out kinks in the contrib process
FWIW I don't think this is a realistic option, certainly not for anyone outside of Clojure core. The contrib process is in place because some want it that way - it's very deliberately by design and AFAICT unlikely to change. For projects where the maintainer for whatever reason doesn't want to use that process (I believe nREPL would be the first, but I don't know all the history) I think moving that project out of contrib is likely to mean the least amount of frustration. On 22 July 2017 at 00:15, Herwig Hochleitner <hhochleit...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-07-18 14:48 GMT+02:00 Chas Emerick <c...@cemerick.com>: > > I would like to hear here (no more private mails, please! :-) from any > nREPL users, contributors, etc. As much as possible, I would like not to > debate/re-litigate the merits of contrib and its process here; let's focus > on what steps will yield the best outcome for nREPL and its stakeholders. > > I only have a stake as a user (unfortunately), but FWIW, I'd much rather > see nREPL stay within contrib and the renewed effort, that you propose, to > go into ironing out kinks in the contrib process (e.g. for one-off > contributions, the assignment could go into the commit message, maybe?; > also our atlassian versions could do with an update; also, it would be > _really_ nice, if patches could be discussed/accepted on the [dev-] mailing > list, LKML style) > > I realize, that this is effectively asking Chas to roll the boulder up the > hill, yet another time, but my reason is simple: > For infrastructure, free market principles don't easily apply: People > generally fix roads instead of adding new ones in parallel to existing > ones, and if there ever is an "infrastructurey" clojure library, it would > be tools.nrepl. Also, like Sean Corfield, I have my reservations about the > potential for contribution increases due to a reboot. > To me the risks of a reboot far outweigh the potential benefits. > > That said, Chas and Bozhidar, as the largest stakeholders, both seem to be > in favor of a reboot, hence I wouldn't veto it even if I could. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
