On 3/17/06, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/16/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The difference is that Spring is commercial open source. Here it needs > > > a volunteer willing to do it and the problem with that if "eat our own > > > dog food" how likely is it there'll be a volunteer wanting to back > > > port? > > > > Following up on something Niall said elsewhere, the trick to open > > source is to concentrate on scratching your own itch. If there's a > > feature that *you* want implemented for *your* application, go ahead > > and implement it, and then try to share the wealth. Worst case, you've > > got a feature that you needed. Ditto for patches and fixes. Worse > > case, you've patched your copy of the framework so that it works > > better for you. > > > > Anytime anyone says something like "I don't want to do this work > > unless it's going to be accepted to the distribution", then the first > > thing I think is that this person is volunteering for the wrong > > reasons, and, if so, it would be better if they didn't volunteer to do > > the work. > > > > I have to disagree. There are more colours than black and white. I've > played devils advocate for Frank in another thread, now it's your turn > :-) > > Consider following example, which took place approx. 6 month ago: > > Someone (lets call him X) is using struts in his corporate environment. > X and/or X's company develops some extensions/new features/whatever to > the struts distro. The features are actually used and are actually > running and being tested in production and so on. One day X and/or X's > company decides: Ok, we are using an OpenSource project, and we > benefit from this project, it's time to give something back to the > community. X 'comes' to the StrutsDevList and says: Ok we developed a > new feature on top of the project (or inside the project) and we'd > like to give it back to the community to honour communities work and > especially the work of the commiters. What would be the answer? > > Right: not interested. > > The above example should illustrate how the open source projects are > ment to work.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Contributions to ASF projects, at least, are not simply accepted because they were offered. There are several factors that need to be taken into account. To give just two: (1) Does the contribution fit with the direction of the project as determined by the committers; (2) Are there committers willing to step up not just to add the contribution to the source code, but to vet it first, and be responsible for, and maintain, that new code over time. If we had accepted every contribution that had ever been offered to Struts over the last 6 years, the end result would be a complete shambles by now. (IMHO, of course.) Yes, I understand that it can be frustrating when someone's pet awesome enhancement isn't instantly adopted, but understand that there's a lot more to it than just checking it in and keeping going. They aren't working that way. You will understand that > this creates a lot of frustration upon the volunteers and I greatly > honour all the volunteers, who managed to contribute and give > something back to the community despite the commiters effort to > prevent it. If you think we expend effort to prevent giving back, then you have a screw loose. ;-p -- Martin Cooper </devils advocate speech> > > > -Ted. > > > > Leon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
