This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Ali Lloyd ali.lloyd at
Wed Sep 9 03:06:40 EDT 2015

I'm sorry you felt it was passive-aggressively not accepted. It was meant
neither as passive-agressively <anything>, nor <anything> not accepted.

Indeed I have used almost the exact same wording in the past:

In that case it was a one-line bugfix in a stack that was the same in all
versions of the IDE, and so it was absolutely no trouble at all to
incorporate. Also it is a stack to which almost no changes are ever made,
and a change with foreseeably no side-effects.

This is a more complex change, an enhancement, to a stack that is different
in two versions of the IDE, to a stack far more central to the IDE.
Incorporating the contribution there involves more work (it would make
sense to scriptify as much of the script editor as possible at the same
time). If an engineer here has time to do that, that would be great.
However the maintenance workload here is pretty immense, and personally all
my time is being spent on the develop branches.

We can and do accept user inputs to three quarters of the files in our
repositories. One of your pull requests was merged into the IDE a couple of
weeks ago.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:38 AM Mark Wieder <mwieder at> wrote:

> On 09/08/2015 05:37 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> > If we can just get a review process in place for community enhancements
> > to the IDE to be included in the main install, everyone wins.
> And that's really the only unsolved part right now.
> 1. The script editor fix is now part of the LC8 develop branch.
> 2. Charles' script editor stack is now public and usable in LC6 and LC7.
> 3. Charles detailed the changes that need to be done in the existing
> script editor stack in his bug report.
> 4. I incorporated Charles' stack into my build repository, pushed, and
> submitted a pull request.
> So there are now four ways to get this integrated into LC6 and LC7.
> 1. I guess it's too much work to backport the changes that were made to
> the LC8 stack.
> 3. For some reason it must be too hard to incorporate the bug report
> changes, because the filter was implemented a different way.
> 4. My pull request was passive-aggressively not accepted because
> "there's no way to review the changes".
> That leaves #2, as in it's an exercise left to the user to incorporate
> locally, and has to be again with each new release.
> This would be ridiculous if it weren't so ridiculous... an open source
> project on its third major release that still can't accept user inputs?
> --
>   Mark Wieder
>   ahsoftware at
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:

More information about the use-livecode mailing list