Re: participation & contribution [was: Latest changes with lisp/uni-*.el and leim/quail]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:17:12 +0530
> Cc: Emacs development discussions <address@hidden>,
>       Dani Moncayo <address@hidden>
> 
> Drew Adams <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >> 1. A user that provides feedback/bug reports is valuable, even if he
> >>    doesn't submit patches.
> >>
> >> 2. A user that also submit patches is even more valuable, even if he
> >>    doesn't commit them.
> >>
> >> 3. A user that also commit his patches is even (a little) more valuable.
> >> 
> >> Currently I'm at level 2.  It's better than nothing, isn't it?
> >
> > +1, for drawing attention to the worth of #1 and #2.
> 
> I am in agreement with what Drew writes.
> 
> To add to that...
> 
> Submit a patch move on.  Adding a note, that someone else commit it is
> just ....  Surely, no one is under any obligation to commit or accept
> the patch.
> 
> Similarly, insisting that people use Bzr or Commit their Patch can be an
> exhortation, a minor form of persuasion - not quite unlike the "commit
> my patch".  The other party is under no obligation.

You are both off-track: this has nothing to do with _contributions_.

Glenn's frustration (which I share) is that here's an Emacs
_developer_ who has write access to the repository, and is quite
capable of doing the 5-sec commit job, but refuses to do so on some
address@hidden principle and lame excuses.

IOW, he is publicly demonstrating his attitude to the project, asking
others (whose plate is much more full than his, and whose time is more
sparse than his) to act as his dutiful servants.

If this is not unfairness in its extreme, then I don't know what is.
Dani should do some soul-searching.

That each one of you backed him up is really because you talk about
Dani, but think about your own, quite different, cases.