On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Yuri Baburov <burc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/django-openid/source/browse/trunk/django_openid/response.py > Thanks. > > Exactly this is what I wasn't able to find today. > > So, what's the status of this proposal? > Do you think this is what a lot of people would like to see in django or not? > Would you, personally, like?
I'm broadly in favour of the idea, details notwithstanding. Others have indicated their interest in the idea in this thread. >> Using direct_to_response as a replacement for >> render_to_response is really just the ultimate extension of this >> theory. > Great! So you confirm lack of attention? ;) > Why else have nobody found this implication before committing this feature? Because the feature was implemented over 4 years ago, and the core of the framework was still in rapid flux. At that point, the idea was a generic view. As often happens with the benefit of time, thinking on the topic has evolved somewhat since then, but there have been other development priorities (magic-removal, newforms, v1.0, ...). >> Views might not be perfect, and they might be able to work better, but >> they _work_. If you disagree, then *you* need to solve it. Remember - >> Django is open source. We'll take submissions from anyone. You just >> need to demonstrate to us that your ideas are sound and your >> implementation is robust. > I don't owe you anything. You don't owe anything to me. > > But I'd like you to _encourage_ Django contributors to do stuff for Django, > not impersonate a contribution to Django as a kind of "prize" only for > already privileged people and unpredictable "if you can attract us" > behavior, like you always do. I beg your pardon? I openly challenge this assertion. I've lost track of the number of times I've said "Patches welcome", or invited someone to expand on an idea. I even said it in the paragraph you responded to: "We'll take submissions from anyone" I have been actively encouraging people to contribute to Django for almost 4 years, and so have the other core developers. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. > This bitchy "we might devote some time to you if you can attract us" > politics keep me away from any serious time effort in direction of > contribution to Django for few years. Somewhere, some wires have become badly crossed. Django's consistent position has been the *exact opposite* of what you seem to think it is. We *want* external contributors. We *don't* want to do al the work ourselves. That said, we need external contributors to work *with us*. It's no good just dumping a 1000 line patch on our doorstep and saying "have fun". We need contributors to engage with the core team to finesse ideas and code until they are ready. > Like you don't want to allow any contribution, but it is possible to > make contribution "by force" of idea superiority. Well, if you mean that we are only going to commit good ideas into the Django trunk, then yes. And I won't apologize for this. It's how we guarantee that Django remains a good framework. If this means that some ideas take a while to get into trunk, then thats the price we pay. I'm willing to slow the rate of technological progress if it means we have API stability and a robust framework. > Django just doesn't have any mechanism to take decision on small > enhancements, to support and to encourage them. What complete rubbish. You're using one of those mechanisms *right now*. We have an extensive section in the documentation that describes exactly how to get involved, and how Django's feature development process works [1]. The mailing list is one of the channels by which you can get feedback - there are others. [1] http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/ You should also note that *this very thread* disproves your claim. Your suggestion about views has spawned a discussion about what we could do improve view handling. Core committers are involved, as are other community members. There isn't universal agreement that your original idea is right, but there is discussion, out of which I hope consensus will eventually emerge. > I checked this few times already, I've seen a lot of tickets with such > enhancements. > Nobody cares of them. There's no person I can talk with about my > contributions. > There's no person currently who can tell what's wrong with my > suggestion and, what's more important, how I can fix it to get it into > Django, and what exactly I should do to be sure it will be included. > Total irresponsibility, lack of management, the worst side of Django > communism. > > I want a win-win model: you and me get a feature added to Django, you > want it and I want it, I make a contribution, you help me to integrate > my contribution. Let's work *together* on contributing to django, not > putting a bitch shield ( > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bitch+shield ) between > Django and enhancements. And that's *exactly* how it works. However, don't confuse a lack of direct and immediate feedback on one specific issue with a lack of feedback on *all* issues. There are 5000 members on django-dev. It simply isn't possible for the core team to keep every single one of those people happy, especially when they are doing so in their spare time, as volunteers. I've written over 150 messages to django-developers since the release of v1.1, specifically answering design questions and helping evolve features. This has taken up almost all of my free time over the last 3 months. If you're wondering why the Django trunk hasn't had many commits lately, it's mostly because my time has been spent doing exactly what you say I don't do. Still, I know I have missed some proposals. And during the period where proposals for v1.2 have been the focus, reviewing tickets has taken second priority. There have been patches submitted to tickets that I haven't looked at. Once the feature proposal phase stops, this should change. When we move to the bug-fixing phase, tickets will get a lot more attention. What you need to keep in mind is that you are but 1 person in this group of 5000. If you want someone to pay attention to your proposals and your tickets, you need to do three things: 1) Make proposals that are worthy of attention 2) Express your ideas in a way that gets a member of the core interested 3) Have a reputation that warrants attention. (1) is the easy part. (2) isn't so easy - many proposals get ignored simply because the proposer can't express themselves clearly or succinctly. If I can't work out why I should be interested in your idea from your mailing list submission, then your idea doesn't stand much chance. (3) is the really hard one. All open source projects work on a network of trust, and Django is no exception. It takes time to review a patch, and the relationship between the size of a patch and the time required to review it isn't linear - it's exponential. Given that my time is limited, I'm not going to commit to reviewing a big patch unless I know the author has a good reputation, or that the idea is *really* interesting. To put it very bluntly: You say we should review your tickets, and respond to your proposals. So do 5000 other people. It simply isn't possible for me to keep 5000 people happy. Therefore, I need to prioritize. I prioritize based on what I perceive to be the most effective use of my time, which means paying attention to people that have a history of producing good work, and a history of working with me effectively. You need to give me a reason to pay attention to you, rather than anyone else. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
