Don Wrote: > Bill Baxter wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> I'm just saying > >> that the patch was mostly turned down because he didn't asked for other > >> devs permission to make the patch, not because of the quality of the patch > >> (or the feature) itself. That discourages people to make patches, and > >> I think that's *really* bad. > > > > Don may have said that not discussing a change before submitting a > > patch for it dooms the patch to failure, but I don't think that's true > > at all. I think it just means that the chances the patch will solve > > the problem in a way that is agreeable to those who matter is much > > smaller. But if Chad had managed to hit on the magic formula that > > everyone thought was a great solution, I think the patch would have > > been accepted (after some inevitable discussion). > > I'm making an observation. AFAIK such patches have never been accepted. > > > In this case, had Chad discussed the matter first, I think he would > > have quickly found that there was little support for his syntax > > extension, and he could have saved himself the trouble of implementing > > it. > > Yes. It's such a shame, when there are so many bugs open in Bugzilla, > that someone spends time on a patch which you can say apriori that it > will fail.
What's also a shame is that I've tried to solicit from Walter which changes he'd be open to. It was an attempt at getting a varied list so that inspired individuals could pick an item and run with it. For the most part, I failed. Walter did suggest two gdb compatibility issues. Andrei's response about Phobos was better, but still seemed lacking to me :( I've largely given up on trying to make things friendlier to community involvement.
