It’s odd that technical competency or utility isn’t one of the pillars.
For example, suckless and OpenBSD both have a reputation as perhaps less-than-welcoming–and by the pillars in this document, they’d be “unhealthy”. Are they though?
Are there good examples of open-source projects that are very healthy by these standards but which are technologically stagnant or irrelevant?
They also have a reputation for valuing non-code contributions (the docs reputedly excellent).
Are there good examples of open-source projects that are very healthy by these standards but which are technologically stagnant or irrelevant?
It’s hard to find examples of irrelevant software because nobody has a reason to publicize it.
Finding widely-used open source projects which have poor code quality is hardly difficult, but I do hate to crap on the hard work of volunteers. That said, a cursory browse of openssl-dev left me with the impression they would probably meet the standards.
The recommended code of conduct is so dry I had to use eye drops.
https://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/
It’s odd that technical competency or utility isn’t one of the pillars.
For example, suckless and OpenBSD both have a reputation as perhaps less-than-welcoming–and by the pillars in this document, they’d be “unhealthy”. Are they though?
Are there good examples of open-source projects that are very healthy by these standards but which are technologically stagnant or irrelevant?
They also have a reputation for valuing non-code contributions (the docs reputedly excellent).
It’s hard to find examples of irrelevant software because nobody has a reason to publicize it.
Finding widely-used open source projects which have poor code quality is hardly difficult, but I do hate to crap on the hard work of volunteers. That said, a cursory browse of openssl-dev left me with the impression they would probably meet the standards.
heh, the domain is
crate.ioand the article mentions Rust