Timeline for What's the canonical retort to "it's open source, submit a patch"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2012 at 1:48 | comment | added | Evan Plaice | It doesn't necessarily have to be a patch. Providing detailed and refined feedback also holds worth. All this is saying is, don't expect me to invest my time to cover your specific need if you have nothing to offer in return. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 13:39 | comment | added | JohnL4 | -1 open source asshole answer. Not useful. (Sorry.) There is no canonical "retort". Best response (assuming the OP can't just submit a patch, which I think is a reasonable assumption in this case) is one of (1) "I don't have the capabilities or resources to generate a patch [and possibly include a link to this very question]", (2) eyeroll, no response, use of tool in its current state, or (3) search for a better tool. | |
| Apr 18, 2011 at 8:08 | comment | added | user8 | I normally don't like short answers, but this is seriously the only way to respond that's guaranteed to end in the result you're looking for. They clearly stated the best possible way to achieve your goal. Why muck about with any lesser solution? | |
| Apr 17, 2011 at 15:09 | comment | added | Bob Murphy | Or better yet, to say, "I already did six months ago. When are you guys gonna get around to reviewing and committing it?" | |
| S Apr 16, 2011 at 6:29 | history | answered | wnoise | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Apr 16, 2011 at 6:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki |