Alfred, taken out of order: [what user's expect] > 0) Fixing bugs.
> 1) Committing fixes (it is up to the person who sends the actual fix > to clean it up into a decent state, the maintainer should say > what is wrong). > 2) Adding a feature once in a blue moon, but it is _not_ the > maintainers job to implement each and every feature that someone > asks for--that is up to contributors. Reasonable enough. (2) is fairly important and more complicated than you suggest. Contributors sometimes contribute poorly designed features that nevertheless satisfy some demand-of-the-day --- it's problematic to just accept those because it effects the long-term health of the project. Meanwhile, not being aggressive about new features can be a problem too (e.g., there are things in git that Arch needs to catch up to). (1) is problematic when you get to the situation I found myself in: a fire-hose stream of problematic fixes from an uncooperative source. How much time is a maintainer supposed to spend saying what is wrong, and being ignored, or fixing it themselves, before giving up? >> what would be their [a maintainer's] motive? > Who cares. >> What's their incentive? > Who cares. >> What's their reward? > Who cares. Maintaining a project takes up a lot of time/money. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
