|
|
|
|
|
|
by _xivi
797 days ago
|
|
|
There are many reasons why a library require continuous maintainance even when it's "feature-complete", off the top of my head: 1. Bug fixes 2. Security issues 3. Optimization 4. Compatibility/Adapt to landscape changes People pointing flaws in a library aren't "scumbags that expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely" No one is forcing the maintainer to "slave away", they can step down any time and say I'm not up for this role anymore. Those interested will fork the library and carry the torch. No need to be so defensive and insult others just for giving feedback. |
|
|
Regardless of the strawman, the person(s) that authored the code don’t owe you anything. They don’t have to step down, make an announcement, or merge your changes just because you can’t read or comprehend the license text that says very clearly in all capital letters the software is warrantied for no purpose once so ever, implied or otherwise.
If one had a patch and was eager to see it upstreamed quickly, it seems like you’re arguing the maintenance status actually doesn’t matter. Since "[t]hose interested will fork the library and carry the torch" if the patch isn’t merged expediently.
But if you're confident the interested will fork and carry the torch, why do you think you're entitled to force the author(s) giving software warrantied for no purpose should step down. That's genuinely deranged, and my insults appear to be accurate descriptions rather than ad hominem attacks since no coherent explanation has been provided as to why the four reasons given somehow supersede the authors chosen license.