> Thanks for letting me know what the case really is, I never had > thought of that. I guess it's a matter of communication, because I > think anyone in my situation at the time would have been disappointed > to find a ticket for the problem with a patch from a year ago that > wasn't applied back then, or clarified as to why it sits there now, > as > you have just clarified. I also think many people consider themselves > users of Rails, and not yet familiar enough with the innards to > really > contribute... but hopefully that will change.
I think that it could be worth updating trac's templates to explain the situation a little better. > I hope I didn't come across as strongly disliking Rails, I don't. What > I am tired of is announcements of Rails clones, as I've pointed out > there is still room for improvement or doing things differently. I > hope to see that happen in one way or another, whether that be in > later versions of Rails or otherwise. I recognize certain things about > Rails aren't going to change... I don't see it ever adopting the style > of modularity of Django, but I do see that third-party "plugin > enhancers" are already getting better support from the core team. Some of the things you mentioned such as generating the schemas from the models are not on the cards, otherse like improved threadsafety are. The easiest way to make them happen is to chip in. :) Several of our 2.0 features came from external contributors, and I expect the same to be true for 2.1. Thanks again, and I hope *I* didn't come across too hostile :) -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
