Clojure and Pull Request Controversy
Jim at Balter.name
Wed Nov 28 14:48:27 UTC 2018
On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 11:29:58 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 00:12:15 UTC, Walter Bright
>> The issue of prioritization of reviewing PRs, etc, perennially
>> comes up and has done so again recently:
>> It seems we're not the only group struggling with this issue.
>> Food for thought, and some controversy:
> I sincerely hope you don't identify with the OP.
> I'm quoting the comments, because the links under "Copy link"
> didn't work.
> "[...] Yes, of course everything you said is technically
> correct. You don't owe anyone anything. But you don't have to
> be so petulant about it. Saying that users aren't even entitled
> to an explanation of why they're not entitled to support is
> childish in the extreme, particularly because your own company
> and livelihood are heavily dependent upon the work that some of
> those users gave you for free.
> I do appreciate that you're making your position very clear -
> hopefully this can help projects and companies make
> better-informed decisions about whether they want to be locked
> in to a project that operates this way. Just dial it back a
> bit, eh?"
> -- briangordon
> "Open source may be a gift, but it doesn't come with batteries
> included, and so there's a cost for adopting such a "gift." If
> you want people to use your software, closed- or open-source,
> you do need to make it worth their time and show some basic
> decency to your users."
> -- tommyettinger
> You cannot say "We need help, we're a small community!" and
> then when people step up and do help say "Who are you anyway?
> You're not entitled to anything!"
> And as regards adopting the software, when you read this thread
> you will not even think twice about whether or not to adopt it,
> you just run away. Ironically enough, it was about the time the
> post about "more radical ideas" was posted that I was beginning
> to feel very uneasy with D.
> Yesterday I was innocently thinking if and how LDC+Android
> could be integrated into Android Studio via CMake etc., but
> then it occurred to me that even if I / we succeeded in doing
> so, the D code itself might still break anytime, because of
> "more radical ideas". Maybe D should be rebranded as
Rich Hickey's piece was addressed to entitled assholes and
trolls. It's no wonder that a maggot like you responded to it as
More information about the Digitalmars-d