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.
Then the maintainer should say so, and maybe suggest a different solution. (1) is problematic when you get to the situation I found myself in: a fire-hose stream of problematic fixes from an uncooperative source. You should simply reject those fixes (with a explanation of why). Which you did. And I don't blame you. How much time is a maintainer supposed to spend saying what is wrong, and being ignored, or fixing it themselves, before giving up? Just ignore the broken fixes/features, there is nothing to fret about if you have a bunch of people who are simply unwilling to listen. Maintaining a project takes up a lot of time/money. I disagree, it takes a lot of patience though. Anyway, this is a waste of time in my opinion. These keystrokes could have been spent on something else. _______________________________________________ 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/
