On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 08:07:33AM +0200, Daniel wrote: > > On 2023-06-14 12:33, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 07:15:27AM +0200, Daniel wrote: > > > > > > Dear developers, > > > > > > I have decided to try to make fewer (if any) patches and rather only > > > suggest > > > improvements at least for now. > > > > > > This is driven by a number of personal factors. But also that I have made > > > the experience that most of the patches most important to me depend highly > > > on whether some developer finds it interesting enough to consider it > > > carefully, in which case I think they may be willing to implement it > > > themselves. There seems to be too little difference in whether and when > > > the > > > suggestion gets committed. > > > > > > Thanks to all of you for all your work on LyX! And good luck with the next > > > release! > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > Thanks for all of your work on the patches. You've put an enormous time > > into them, and I can understand why you're discouraged. I'm sorry I did not > > spend more time reviewing them. > > > > In order to reduce the time you spend on patches that might not be > > accepted, I strongly suggest you "check in" and ask for feedback before > > working on a patch. > > > > I hope you continue your involvement with LyX, in whichever way you find > > productive and fun. I think you provide a valuable perspective, and I can > > see by the progression of your patches over the years that you have > > achieved a good knowledge and feeling of the code base. > > > > Scott > > Hi Scott, > > Thanks! > > Sorry, if my message was a bit misleading. I did not try to criticize. I > just wanted to state my reasons.
I did indeed think you were criticizing, but I also thought that it's OK to have discussion and criticism :). But now I see below, from your statement of "incompatibility", more what you meant. > I fully understood the risk of creating patches without asking and the time > constraints the LyX developers are working on. The "check in" part, which is > probably best done on the ML, seemed tricky for me since the way I discuss > and argue for ideas seemed to frustrate or trigger some people on the list > too much. Yes, this does seem to be the case. > Again, no criticism just an incompatibility that is hard to solve > without more personal contact, I guess. This is a mature statement. I agree. It is a shame that there can be a group of people who all sincerely want the same thing (for LyX to get better), but even if we have the same goal that does not mean that things go smoothly. > Anyway, many patches that I just posted on trac were considered, not least > thanks to you! And most of the patches I wanted to create anyway. I will try > to create a (local!) fork with them. I create a local fork with some patches that I like that others don't, and also some patches that I need that I was too lazy to make them into proper patches. I also use the fork for daily-driving patches from others, especially ones that touch sensitive code. The local fork does require maintenance because when you want to sync with master (I guess rebase or merge) you have to solve conflicts. Also, to back up your local fork, or to share it across systems, I use a private repository on GitLab. That is, I have a branch "sk-private" which is tracking a different remote than the "master" branch. > I might be able to find creating patches more productive again at some > future point. Maybe in a couple of years when 2.5 is around the corner. ;) Great! Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
