On 20 Dec 2013, at 12:47, Graham Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 Dec 2013, at 12:34, David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> it definitely refutes the assertion that patches are not accepted > > Sure. It’s the presentation that’s at fault. There’s an internal feeling that > GNUstep is doing stuff and welcomes external contribution, and an external > presentation of a stale bug database that isn’t linked to the source code
Looking at your patches, I see your point. They are almost all gsweb and gdl2. I (and I suspect the other core developers) think of GNUstep as, what I think Greg has tried to get across repeatedly, the core libraries/software for OSX compatibility. There are other peripheral/ancilliary projects either hosted with gnustep on other closely related sites for tons of extra stuff people need/use but which aren't directly part of that. So, when I think of the GNUstep project, I'm not thinking of all those other bits like gsweb, but I can see how people can think of them as part of GNUstep despite repeated official policy statements about what GNUstep *is*. I guess we are a bit schizophrenic about it ... for instance there are several projects I maintain, with copyright assigned to the FSF under the umbrella GNUstep project category what I would never consider calling 'GNUstep' (the WebServer library for instance), but if someone said 'does GNUstep have a web server' I would point them to it. I don't mean that the WebServer library is part of the GNUstep project, but it's built on top of libobjc/base/make and is avilable for users of GNUstep, so GNUstep 'has' a web server class in the sense that it's available and hosted with gnustep. If I fail to respond to queries about these add-ons, and fail to deal with patches for those libraries, it should not reflect on GNUstep, but by association I guess it could. Similarly, problems with gsweb ought not to relfect upon the main GNUstep project, but apparently they do. I don't know anything much about the workings opf savannah etc, but I guess what ought to be done here is make a clearer (wide) separation between all the separate libraries with are maintained by individuals (or not maintained), and GNUstep proper. Presumably bug/patch pages should direct people to separate pages for things that aren't part of the main project? > (and I wonder how many people find the source mirror on github and think > there hasn’t been a commit in over three months, too). I agree ... mirroring to github seems to have been a mistake. I'm pretty sure Greg wrote warnings with it to say it was a reads-only mirror, but warnings are not sufficient as people don't read/notice them. _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
