On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:10:28 -0800 (PST), DHH wrote: > I think our position is that we'd prefer to keep the current plugins > as-is, but encourage people to start new derivative plugins that can > see further development, which then doesn't have to be backwards > compatible.
Am I the only person saddened by this? (Judging by the lack of other responses to the thread, the answer may well be "yes". If so, please indicate your continued non-sadness by, um, not responding, I guess...) IIRC, this policy wasn't really discussed much when it was adopted - it sort of just got announced as "we think we're going in that direction" and then nobody (else) objected. Obviously, the core team can do whatever it wants, but I'd love to at least see some debate about it. I understand the reticence to "bless" a particular plugin that's no longer part of core. On the other hand, as Rails matures, there's an awful lot of functionality that either starts to or ceases to align with the core team's needs and interests, and it's only natural that various plugins move in and out of core. Yet by freezing them and forcing all development to continue as a project fork, you're effectively squandering their mindshare. And these certainly aren't the last plugins you'll later decide aren't a good fit for core. In some sense, that may be what you want - it was withering away in core, so let a thousand flowers bloom and all that. Yet, to argue from absurdity, I haven't seen anyone suggest that Rails would be improved by freezing 1.2.6, and calling 2.0 something else. If you're spinning something off because the core team's not interested in maintaining it, yet there IS an active group of interested maintainers, something seems wrong. I'm also jaded from seeing the same thing happen at a corporate level - big company likes technology, big company buys technology, technology is now only small part of big company and quickly gets subsumed. It is, in a way, a disincentive to being made part of core; you'll get a lot of mindshare early on, but later, you can be just as quickly abandoned, worse off than you were before (unless you consider a name change to be "no big deal", in which case, again, I point you to the "rename Rails" argument). I wish I could enunciate my objection better, but for lack of that, I'll just repeat: Something seems wrong. There oughta be a better way. -- Jay Levitt | Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit. http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
