Re: [Administrivia] On ruby and contrib/

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 7, 2013, 19:27 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0m4V4KYyKW8KJMRsCgOxqcLi0XDYZvS4w++6BKVVvioyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2f2RBGd0VwJaSB1FkHBXRGhrTs_sA80kcinmpzJX8UDg@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

>> Also we heard from no regular/high-value reviewers
>> that they feel comfortable reviewing additions in Ruby.
>
> Correction; *current* regular/high-value reviewers.

Correct. The opinions of inactive community members and non-contributors are less useful.

Show 6 quoted lines

> We could change, and we would probably receive a big influx of fresh
> contributors happy that they can contribute in their favorite
> language. But we won't do that, why? Because you already decided
> that's not going to happen, because you are making the false
> assumption that things in the future can only be like things have been
> in the past.

Okay, so here's the deal: commit a lot of good ruby code to contrib*, and attract users/ contributors. Eventually, if you're right about git.git growing a healthy ruby ecosystem, we'll get ruby in core. As I've said multiple times, this agenda-based approach just sucks, because we can't predict the future.

* I'll help out in whatever little way I can