Timothy <tecos...@gmail.com> writes:
, but Org mode development is
in a new phase that *requires* technique and is quicker to
identify and filter
out noise.
Hmmm, what constitutes noise?
Good question. I suppose like most words the meaning changes over
time. Early on, posts along the lines of "Wouldn't it be cool if
Org mode would do this?" were given more space than they seem to
be today. Tim Cross points out a project trajectory that appears
to be common and would explain why. At a more concrete level, I
can offer several of my posts to the list :)
These changes mean that contributions need to be checked for
contributions to
Nicolas' project and also fit into the history of discussion
and development.
The Org mode project now resembles a scholarly discipline that
moves slowly and
deliberately toward a more or less well defined goal. The days
when Carsten
would bang out a new feature during his train ride home from
work are gone.
I think here there may have been a minor misunderstanding
/miscommunication. Reading this paragraph I get the sense you
read my
email as complaining about a delay in merging patches, however
this is a
separate ---if related--- point to what I intended to raise: the
lack of /response/ to patches.
1. Were I talking about merging: a more considered development
model, as
you describe above, can certainly see a protracted merge
delay.
However, 6 months for a minor feature addition [1], and 2
months for
a minor bug fix [2] is not justified by a more considered
development
model IMO.
2. (My main point) Even if development is slower, leaving a
first-time
contributor with /absolutely no response/, i.e. *zero*
replies to
their email *months* after they sent it (see [1] and [2] for
example,
and updates.orgmode.org for more) is not good enough IMO. We
should
be better.
So, something in between merging (or not) and appearing on the
public list that Bastien keeps?
Once again, with reference to my earlier paragraph, IMO slowed
development is one thing, not responding at all to attempted
contributors for months on end another. It is the latter which I
seek to
improve. I can, have, and will try to help with this myself; but
I think
we would benefit from a "community effort" and a discussion on
what the
best way to improve this is.
What do you think of Tim Cross' suggestion that a way forward is
for "new features and enhancements to be initially implemented as
add on contribution packages rather than as extensions/enhancement
to the core 'org-mode' package"? This sounds good to me, but I'm
not much of a programmer and lack the ability to suss out its
ramifications fully. I can see how it would ease Org mode
maintenance, though.
All the best,
Tom
--
Thomas S. Dye
https://tsdye.online/tsdye