zlacker

>>jashke+(OP)
Though Rich is right, it pains me to read this because it is indicative of some disputes in the clojure community. I might be mistaken, but it seems that Rich is reacting to Chas Emericks' twitter post (https://twitter.com/cemerick/status/1067111260611850240). In his comments he has stated: "Finally, from a practical perspective, my core-level contributions always came from some source of pressing need in an actual, present, needs-to-work project. If I know a problem isn't going to be triaged for months and solved for years, then I'm out."

So this is not some grieving random person from crowd - Chas is a person whose libraries and contributions I value tremendously and he certainly made LOTS of contributions to clojure OSS landscape for free and out of his good will as well. So ultimately this feels like your parents are arguing (which is never a good thing) - you like them both and you just want the arguing to stop and you just want everybody to live together in harmony. But here you go, Chas has moved away from clojure now. And I have to say I am very sorry to see him go.

>>newcro+it
I don’t know this person but there’s a fork button on github. “Pressing need” —> fork

Seems to be an ego thing.

>>beders+qF
The you have to maintain your own fork. And keep up with changes upstream. And reconcile the two forks. And... And...

I'm not even mentioning the potential split in the community.

>>dmitri+JG
So you're asking someone else to do that work for you. Look, the user has a few choices:

1) find a work-around (maybe unwind his or her own mess) 2) manage a fork 3) work with the existing process

I've worked around people doing all three of these options but what I've regularly found was that taking a look at unwinding your own mess is the right approach for the vast majority of cases.