On 05 Nov 2017, at 12:43 AM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek <tessa...@evermeet.cx> wrote:

>> If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above,
>> your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and
>> what you want is largely irrelevant.
> 
> This attitude is exactly the reason why Apache is losing marketshare
> against Nginx.

Nginx has their own development process. They don’t use git either, nor do they 
accept pull requests, and they expect you to follow a well defined process not 
dissimilar to ours. If I was to contribute to Nginx I would respect their 
process, not attempt to impose mine on them first.

> Seriously? You must be joking. Also, I'm not the one who suggested to
> replace it, but pointed out a few arguments for git, which was suggested
> by Stefan Priebe. Or the be exact, he asked "why not git?”.

No, you expressed a definite unwillingness to follow our process, which starts 
by creating a patch for trunk.

> Yes, most projects have their own conventions and yes, I tailor my
> contributions towards their processes as well.

Except in this case.

> However, there are projects, which processes are too extrem and tedious
> and I don't contribute because of them.
> 
> I did not suggest to replace your precious work flow, I only showed up
> why people _might_ be put off by it.

Unfortunately you’re pointing out the obvious. There are a number of ways of 
doing things, and projects make different decisions to meet their needs and 
objectives. That way is sometimes not your favoured way. If we constantly 
changed our process, we’d not serve our community, and ultimately serving our 
community is the point.

Regards,
Graham
—

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to