Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Even so, I targeted `contrib/` with my patch series because > `contrib/README` says: > > The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe > even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, > and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved > faster. > > Does this README's intent still apply, or has the purpose of contrib/ > changed? The intent may still be the same, but my suspicion is that the world has changed sufficiently to make contrib/ that is offered with such an intent no longer is useful. In other words, "contrib/" as a nursery may have been our dream, but the dream did not materialize and may have outlived its usefulness. > Would you like me to organize the code and patches such that they more > clearly fall under your maintenance once the patches are merged? If that > is your preference, I will gladly put in the work. > > When I submitted the Scalar patches, I did not want to burden you with > maintaining it, I expected to maintain Scalar going forward, but maybe > that is not your preference? I assumed it to be my maintenance burden, we > aim to support backward compatibility for existing Scalar users, after > all. Absolutely everything else, however, is up for discussion, subject to > the full scrutiny of the community and to the same standards of a > submission to the core of the project. > > And I see your point about backward compatibility: The Git project has > plenty of experience with maintaining backward compatibility and _still_ > improving on initial designs. I therefore can easily give up my hard “this > command-line interface must not be changed” stance. It depends on how you define "maintenance". Many parts of the system (e.g. difftool, commit-graph, pack bitmaps, multi-pack index, sparse-index, po, and gitweb) may "fall under my maintenance", but you can see that I am not heavily involved in any of these areas, other than serving mostly as a traffic cop. If a patch that touches some area comes, I may trust input from folks who are more deeply involved in the area (e.g. input from Taylor better than from other folks, including mine, for a patch that touches midx) when deciding if the patch needs revising or if it is ready. I would expect that is more or less how things would work for anything that is in my tree. And I do not think it would be any different for Scalar. I would expect that any bugfixes or new features would be redirected to you folks. Ehh, not that you would need redirecting---I'd expect you'd jump on them even _before_ I would react ;-)
