On Dec 8, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Trans wrote: > I would like some constructive appraisal. I recently offered some > patches to RubyGems. I feel I was making my best effort to contribute > some functionality to the code base that would be useful to > developers. But in this process, rather then feel a part of a > community effort, even if only a minor part, I felt rather skewered... > > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/14 > (above in context > https://github.com/trans/rubygems/commit/b61fd7cb577a8df6be2feb1a35983e9846d31b3c) > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/12 > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/8 > > I'm not sure why anyone would contribute to a Ruby project if it > transpires like this. But then maybe thats the way it is?
Changes to the specification format must be done with care that you don't introduce odd edge cases or bad practices that have already been worked out for good reasons. As stated by Chad, whilst the comments may have become abrasive, the core content contains valid points. I don't see how you would expect these points to be ignored just because you wrote a patch. I will come and provide some more feedback if/when I have time to, at present I don't have time to. > Is this > really what one should expect? You should expect review. You should not expect review to happen definitely within some specific time period (as per pull/8). This is open source, I'm certainly not paid to work on any open source. I can't speak for history that clearly has an effect on the kind of responses you got from individuals. I can tell you that in the very limited time I've had to look through this, there are valid comments that prevent a merge into master at this time for at least the gemspec changesets. I haven't had time to review the rdoc changesets. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
