Re: Proposing game for inclusion

[John Stowers <john stowers lists gmail com>]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Mario Wenzel <maweki gmail com> wrote:

I do think that there is a difference between getting a drive-by for a C game (I don't like the C game but I do like the contribution) and making a commitment to maintain a game for 2, 5 or 10 years (gnome-robots should be that old by now, I guess).

I agree there is a difference, and one should think about future maintenance burden.

However, by the same logic, you are making a bet on Vala for that same future 2,5 or 10 year maintenance period.

I would not make that bet. I would never mandate a single language in such a way that it requires I make any bet at all.

John

 

The latter is a comittment for the whole team and not just the team as it is now but all future maintainers in the suggested time period.
Don't get me wrong, I am not comfortable with the state of our codebase as it is, either.

Am 16.04.2014 14:55, schrieb John Stowers:

Specifically, I suggest that you are not getting drive by patches for non Vala games because the position of the g-g team is that those contributions are not welcomed. Furthermore, at the extreme, you are evidently missing out on contributors because non-Vala games are not welcome.