emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Contributors and maintainers (Was: [PATCH] Add shell-quasiquote.)


From: John Wiegley
Subject: Contributors and maintainers (Was: [PATCH] Add shell-quasiquote.)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:34:12 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin)

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> That's also my point, exactly. Any code in Emacs should use standard APIs,
> and if those APIs need to be fixed, they should be fixed regardless. But the
> need to be fixed does not mean the APIs should be bypassed.

This message is not just to Taylan, but to others who wish to contribute to
Emacs in the future.

The argument transpiring between Taylan and Eli has attempted to paint a
picture wherein the proposed change is "obviously" right (as seen by the
submitter) and "obviously" unacceptable (as seen by the maintainer). This
clash has led to much heated debate.

Part of the debate seems to be a lack of appreciation of the difference
between contributors and maintainers. You see, it is not sufficient to have a
good idea, no matter how clear it is to its submitter. *We* maintain Emacs,
and so the change must satisfy *us*, no matter how thick our skulls may be. If
we ask for clarification that Wednesday follows Tuesday, either you provide us
with that clarification, or the change doesn't go in. Period.

Our work is done on a volunteer basis, and so we choose what we want to
support in the future, and what we don't. Like it or not, Eli is 100% correct
and right, as maintainer, to ask for clarifications how and when he sees fit
-- and to expect those clarification in a format he wants to see them in! This
will remain true until he steps down as maintainer, or someone else fills his
shoes.

No submitter can brow-beat us into accepting a patch because they think it is
"clear" or "right" or "obvious". This isn't how collaboration works in the
free software world. We decide who has commit rights, and we reserve the right
to reject and revert commits.

If anyone does not like this, be forewarned. Otherwise, please show Eli and
the other developers here the respect and deference they deserve, especially
in light of *how much time* they have given freely to the Emacs project. Are
they ideal individuals who always express themselves perfectly? Probably not.
But they are our maintainers, and if you can't respect them, you shouldn't be
contributing here. It will only frustrate you.

Lastly, if anyone is having persistent, negative experiences with some aspect
of the Emacs developer community, please approach me directly. My e-mail is
address@hidden It is my vehement interest that we find a successful
path for all involved, and I will work with anyone to help make this possible.

John



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]