On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Howerton <kevin.hower...@gmail.com> wrote: > The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution > is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any > contributions in the first place. Why should I contribute a patch to > your flawed architecture if I'm going to be talked down to, ridiculed, > then eventually have the patch rejected because it breaks code in some > edge-use-case?
I'm sorry that you've felt ridiculed or talked down to. I can promise you that wasn't the intent. To satiate my own curiosity, and to help me not make similar mistakes, could you point me to where that's happened? > It's a good idea to avoid breaking backwards compatibility in point > releases, but as far as major releases go ... I whole heartedly > encourage it. That is, in fact, our policy. 1.1 is compatible with 1.0; 1.2 with 1.1; etc. > Personally I believe my time might be better spent developing a fork, > than arguing over clear flaws in architecture decisions that "can't be > changed". This is open source, and that's your prerogative. If you want to start a fork, do. I hope you'll consider contributing back to the trunk, but that's up to you. For better or worse, we've chosen a development policy that prioritizes stability, maturity, and longevity. If those aren't your priorities, then perhaps a fork is the right answer. Jacob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
