Fork me on GitHub
#rewrite-clj
<
2019-06-23
>
lread01:06:52

Thanks @sogaiu! I think if he does not respond maybe he does not want to respond. Which is his choice, of course. I was thinking of reaching out to past heavy committers, but then decided that might be trying a bit too hard. I really don’t want to bother him if he does not want to be bothered.

sogaiu02:06:51

yes, that makes sense, though afaiu we don't know whether he is just not seeing these messages as you suggested earlier. i was thinking in general though that life being what it is, no matter what library, at some point original maintainers might want to be involved less or not at all -- but from the perspective of folks who use a library, some idea of what a transition might be like upfront before starting to use a library may come to be more of an issue in the times to come (am reminded a bit of code-of-conduct docs). since there are already many projects without clear statements of this sort, i thought that as a community, having some discussion about whether or how such things might be helped might be in order.

lread03:06:27

Thanks @sogaiu, I value your ideas and opinions. I think there is a chance my email might have ended up in his spam folder, but there is much less of a chance that he will miss the git issue I raised. For me, this is sufficient effort. I’ll let the git issue sit for a month before taking any action. For contacting original authors of inactive repos in general, I think a reasonable effort should made while still respecting that person’s choice not to respond. I suppose defining what a reasonable effort might be could be helpful for clj-commons? For me for rewrite-clj: active on Slack? no -> email -> response after over a month? no -> git issue -> response after 1 month? we’ll see, but if no, I think that’s good enough and will make a choice.

👍 4
sogaiu03:06:56

that sounds reasonable to me. i know though that it's possible there are situations and viewpoints i haven't considered and that's where some open discussion might be helpful. well, my suspicion is that this is likely to become more of an issue in the coming times (and i suspect there are others who have already thought about this). there is no hurry i suppose to try to discuss such things 🙂 at any rate, really appreciate your efforts on the rewrite-clj* front!

sogaiu07:06:58

@lee oh yeah, thanks for the rewrite-cljs performance tuning link -- had not seen that before!

lread12:06:07

Interesting huh? With all the performance tuning done in cljs since that article was written, I wonder if their impact is the same. Cljs has a built in simple-benchmark that might help in getting some answers.

sogaiu21:06:00

would comparing the results from the developer tools profiler with cljs + rewrite-cljs from the time the article was written with recent versions of cljs + rewrite-cljs be straight-forward?

sogaiu21:06:24

btw, you mentioned working on cljs a bit -- have you already looked at lumo?

lread21:06:38

I think comparing rewrite-cljs optimizations with my rewrite-cljc (or whatever it becomes named) unoptimizations should be doable. It is on my todo to look at but I won’t block an alpha release for that. I have not looked at lumo at all yet! Looking forward to doing so someday.

sogaiu22:06:56

oh darn it, i thought you were looking to become a lumo maintainer 🙂

lread23:06:54

ha! so many opportunities to learn and explore!