Than Sean for pointing to that thread that's helpful although that got me wondering if Rich is only one doing the reviews ? If that's not the case maybe there at least on maintainer that is willing to bridge the gap here ?
I really hope someone will step up to bridge the gap, maybe setup a fork and then forward contributions as a patches to JIRA so people who love patches will look at them instead. Regards -- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ On Saturday, 2013-01-19 at 11:47 , Andy Fingerhut wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Sean Corfield wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andy Fingerhut > > <andy.finger...@gmail.com (mailto:andy.finger...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > The issue that Clojure, its contrib libraries, and ClojureScript do not > > > accept github pull requests has been brought up several times before on > > > this email list in the past. Feel free to search the Google group for > > > terms like "pull request". Short answer: Rich Hickey prefers a workflow > > > of evaluating patches, not pull requests. It is easier for him. > > > > > > My understanding is that with pull requests it becomes much harder to > > provide accountability for Intellectual Property which is a legal > > concern, and that's why we have a Contributor's Agreement. The patch > > process naturally falls out of the legal CA-covered process since each > > patch is clearly identified as "belonging" to a specific contributor - > > and submitting a patch comes with the responsibility of vouching for > > the legal status of that submission. Github's pull request process > > makes it all too easy to incorporate code that belongs to a Github > > account holder who is not covered by the legal agreement and places > > the burden of verification on screeners to verify the IP ownership. > > > > But let's not re-hash the issue of the CA. Folks can just read the > > archives and there's really nothing new to add... > > > > > I won't rehash the issue, but will provide direct pointers to a couple of > posts that led me to believe my statements above. > > Here is a link to the whole thread, with many posts on the > then-just-being-started clojure-doc.org (http://clojure-doc.org) web site > (which I'm pleased to see has certainly come a long way since early Oct 2012): > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/clojure/jWMaop_eVaQ > > Scan a down to Jay Fields post from Oct 6 2012, and then to Rich Hickey's > response later the same day. I don't have any inside info about Rich's > preferences for patches outside of such public messages, but it definitely > seems to be due to workflow preference issues, not legal issues. > > Andy > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > (mailto:clojure@googlegroups.com) > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > (mailto:clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com) > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
