On 02/09/2016 09:11 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
My email is inevitably met not with acceptance, nor with constructive
discussion, but with some attempt to derail the entire enterprise. Here
are some real examples, paraphrased by yours truly:
I think it should be done some other way, even though the other way
obviously doesn’t work for you and so far nobody has ever been found who
is willing to implement it that way
I don’t want to solve this problem without also solving [unrelated
problem X], your proposal doesn’t address [unrelated problem X],
therefore I am inclined to reject it
I don’t know you and there might be a bug in your patch. This patch
is too important to leave to somebody new. At the same time it is not
important enough for any of the core committers to get to it.
Defend this proposal. You’re telling me you “need” encryption in an
internet communications library, or you “need” unicode support in an
object storage library. I don’t believe you. We’ve gotten along just
fine for N months without it, and we’ll get along for another 2N months
just fine thanks.
Look, we’ve already implemented [sort-of related feature] even
though it’s buggy and doesn’t cover your usecase. That decision was
complicated and people were arguing about it for years and I really
don’t want to go through that jungle again. If you wanted to do it this
way you should have spoken up two years ago.
Unfortunately, that sounds very similar to experiences I've had here in
D-land :( Gets very frustrating.
