Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.online> writes:
>> 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 :) Follow up: What should be the response to "noise", because I don't think it should be a cold shoulder. >> 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. [snip] >> 2. [snip] > So, something in between merging (or not) and appearing on the public list > that > Bastien keeps? I'll try to clarify my meaning: + Patches are sent in + The /do/ appear on the public list + Months go by without anyone even replying to the patch I think it's fair to expect something along the lines of: "Not sure about this, will require further thought", "Looks good, but want to wait for X to approve", "Not quite sure why this is a good idea, please explain further", or one of a hundred other suitable cursory responses. Instead, there are currently 24 patches listed on https://updates.orgmode.org/#patches which have not received a single response. Then, there are also a large number of other patches with 1-2 cursory replies that seem stuck in limbo (e.g. [1]), with no signs of being merged or rejected (better than 0 replies, but still not good). >> 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. I'm going to reply to Tim Cross' email, but a short version of my current thoughts is: + This feels like a little bit of a tangent from the lack of response + Many patches are modifying core functionality, and would not be suitable as an add-on (e.g. [2], [3], [4], and more) + I'm concerned that good changes could quickly make there way here and never make their way into Org > All the best, > Tom -- Timothy [1]: [PATCH] ob-lilypond: allow user configuration of header-args https://orgmode.org/list/canwlylncudeqrtle9dxb+xzg9t-dwfmfhzrpmuqcuzlzw34...@mail.gmail.com/ [2]: [PATCH] Add org-meta*-final-hook https://orgmode.org/list/caoywxzg1cbl07thlzxhbbczm6te2vmtqnmm0w63331gybrj...@mail.gmail.com/ [3]: [PATCH] ob-C.el: Fix a number a bugs related to table parameters https://orgmode.org/list/874kkqao1e....@bzg.fr/ [4]: [PATCH] Fontification for inline src blocks https://orgmode.org/list/87pmzf4bd0....@gmail.com/