Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
Hazarth739273dis it the job of a "maintainer" to "implement new features" or is their job to "maintain" the current features.
I think the hint is in the name
red-knot204573dI’ve run into the same problem on various occasions. If it’s a simple fix, I’ll open a MR. If they drag their feet to get it merged, I’ll use patch-package to fix it locally for my team
(talking about js dependencies here…)
Nmeri178873d@Hazarth features on the project are stable, hence, it gets released. That's how it garners users. What are you maintaining then if you're not attending to requests for new features? Adding new ones you feel are more important than the ones your users requested? Refactoring? Can't possibly do that all year round and shouldn't be prioritized over new requests
Hazarth739273d@Nmeri17 Well, you maintain nothing if there's nothing to maintain, you work on other projects or if it's an open source project you do whatever you want. When you sign up to maintain a project you don't necessarily sign up to satisfy the users every whim, in fact the nice thing about open source is that if you want a feature, you can contribute it yourself, otherwise you have no other choice than to wait for someone to "feel like" doing it.
lorentz1202473dUnless it's a commercial project, it's no one's job to add new features, and the maintainers also have their own "job" which puts bread on the table. The existing feature set of the package is probably enough for their purposes, so implementing your precious feature is actually closer to your job than to theirs.
k0pernikus553373dThere is a sense of entitlement in a lot of the issues being created on open source projects.
People spend either their free time working on a public library or they are, at best, paid by some stakeholder to maintain the project in a certain direction which need not align with yours.
If you want, you may ask for the feature. Yet at no point are you entitled for them to implement it for you.
I also understand it's not always feasible to implement it yourself, or sometimes some projects shoot feedback down in a way that feels unwelcome.
Yet there is a level of abuse here that a lot common programmers just seem oblivious of.
If you really need it: Code it yourself, pay them to code it for you, pay somebody else to code it for you.
k0pernikus553373d@Nmeri17 The project, as maintained, already solves a certain problem and vision. While it might seem that "if it can do x it should also do y", it also means adding another layer of complexity making the entire thing harder to maintain. Ever heard of "feature creep"? It's sometimes hard enough to keep a project grounded in a certain way as it is. A lot of libraries are very focused to actually keep their scope to a minimum and outright say what they will never do. You might not agree with their stance, your use case might be very valid, still it's their prerogative on how to progress with their project and it's your prerogative to fork them and push the project in a different direction.
Have I mentioned that I'm still alive and healthy ? Haha
Nanos1179073dOne reason I end up creating lots of my own projects, because no one will adjust theirs with the feature I want.
Though most of the time, there is no one around to do the adjusting.
But when there is, they mostly flatly refuse to fix bugs, or implement better features !
It reminds me of trying to get a job, companies often ask for 34 different skills to master level so they can create a new product.
If I had those skills, I'd be creating that product myself !
At the moment, its been nearly a year, and I'm still trying to get a download of an application for hardware I paid for, and I don't even know how buggy it is !
If its like their other software for other products, then it probably will be awful..
I would buy another different brand, but only one company make what I need to have according to government regulations..
hardCoding25472dYou sound like someone who lacks empathy.
If YOU need it, then it is YOU that will code it, and share with everyone else so that they can benefit from your work. Open source is about collaboration, it is not about getting free stuff. That is just a byproduct of altruism.
Nmeri178872d@hardCoding I don't lack empathy, pal. I've built tons of open source components. That's just your perspective. My own perspective is calling for assistance, it has nothing to do with entitlement. The open source world should be all about division of labour. Instead of reinventing wheels or rolling out everything on my own, I intend to leverage existing tools already moving toward that target destination. When the supposed maintainers push me back, it defeats the aim of division of labour. At that moment, their library isn't useful to me and there's no promise to meet me at the point of need in future
k0pernikus553372d@Nmeri17 You may call for assistance. The called upon may flatly refuse you. Why is this such a hard concept for you? They also are not required to promise you a feature that you need. The sooner you really understand that, the less frustrated you'll be in the future.
What you call "division of labor" I would call coercing people to work, free of charge, in a direction you want under the open source umbrella.
Also, if you don't want to be perceived unempathic and entitled, start by not calling other people that provide you with feedback as "pal".
devJs105572d@Nmeri17 if that lib isn't meeting what you need, find another one. Ideally you should fork repo, fix it/add feature and make PR. If you don't want to do that, why should someone who doesn't give jack5h1t about the functionality you need?
In one of the companies I worked before we often forked and extended libs to our own needs, sometimes did PR, sometime just used own forked and extended repo.
don't be one of those entitled devs everyone hates working with
Nmeri178872dEmbarrassing. I guess we can call it a day. Question answered: everyone who experiences this bites the bullet, whether they're solo devs or backed by a fleet of rockstars. I'm in the minority of unpleasant, ungrateful and entitled curmudgeons. Can we move on now?
lorentz1202472d@Nmeri17 Your picture of open source is very idealistic. If the entire world worked on the same principle - free access to resources according to need, and a mutual promise to strive to be useful to each other - this idea would be feasible. But the reality is that the library you're using is at best someone's side gig or a module extracted from a commercial project, most likely a module extracted from a specific abandoned hobby project, which means that it has neither its own scope nor its own resource pool.
Open source, excluding the hottest 100 projects, is about the safety of being able to do it yourself if the maintainer won't. This applies to features, maintenance and auditing alike.
Nanos1179072dI'm reminded of the number of open source projects for things like vehicles, houses, communities, that hardly anyone contributes to.
The world would be a far better place if folk did mind you!
But is it just because no one has the time, or the knowledge, or ability to contribute ?
Can you imagine if Facebook open-sourced itself and no one could be bothered to improve it. :-)
Actually, there is a social media company that did just that !
But of course, no ones heard of them, because no one can has jumped in to help improve their software. :-)
I would if I knew more..
But then the software could benefit from being rewritten from scratch much better than just patched for bugs and missing features..
It seems as if only 2 people know how the software works anyhow, the ones that wrote the original stuff as part of their job role.
Does that mean there simply isn't a 3rd person capable to in the entire world at the moment ?