Gary (Lists) wrote:
If a patch fixes a bug, and someone has taken the time to spot the bug, fix the bug, and make a patch, then why do they also then need to
engage in personality politics to get the fix applied?
This statement reads a bit like "Well, even you fix a bug, we may not
apply the fix if we don't like you."
I've never seen that problem, to be honest. There are good patches that have been shot down, but they were almost invariably written by people who were active and respected members of the community: they were rejected for core not because of personality politics, but because there was dissent among core Drupal contributors about the necessity and usefulness of the patches. A number of these have gone on to become contrib modules (See the prepopulate.module). Others are still being maintained and lobbied (see the trashbin patch). This is frustrating when it's MY patch I'm lobbying for, but tremendously helpful when I'm putting a new site together and don't have to work around cruft from everyone ELSE'S pet features. It's not perfect, but it's a balance I'm happy with these days. The *really* simple stuff tends to get committed quickly as long as it's an actual bug and isn't just masking a more fundamental problem. One thing that I've noticed about the Drupal community is that there is a VERY high value put on a clean and cruft-free core for contrib modules to build on. There is also a STRONG community aversion to 'band-aid fixes.' In other words, if there's a fundamental problem in a particular module or subsystem, it's often easy to slap in a workaround. MANY of the patches submitted by those less familiar with the Drupal architecture are like that. Often, these patches are shelved in favor of solutions that take longer to complete but solve the underlying problems. --Jeff