On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Earl Miles <merlin@logrus.com> wrote:
Dries Buytaert wrote:
As core matures, we might see more patches getting stale. I think the reason is (at least) two-fold:
1) More patches compete for attention, but fewer of these patches are truly important. In this case, patches getting stale is not necessarily a bad thing because history has proven that important patches will eventually bubble to the top for the right reasons.
If the 'right reasons' are because the developers got frustrated with the process and quit pushing their patch, whereas other developers are extremely stubborn and managed to push their patch through anyway, then sure. But just because some developer is bullheaded enough to wade through the crap doesn't mean that's the right reasons.
That, and time. Core committers, as the DCDC comment noted, are those with more time to devote to the effort. It's tough to find the time to contribute to core because the entry point is high, but additionally because it's painful to spend lots of time on a core patch, only to see it languish. The same amount of effort can create and maintain several contrib modules.