We pay managers salaries even though they often don't write any code, why is management of a widely used OSS project not deserving of funding on its own?
I've used standard for years, and I've never once had an issue with breaking changes. They've added features, fixed bugs, and even made changes that fixed issues that I personally raised with the project.
It's good software, and even though it looks trivial at a glance it took a LONG time and a lot of effort to get there, and every time I'm working on a project that doesn't use standard I'm quickly reminded of just how many of those edge cases they have handled for me.
I'm happy about the parts of this discussion that are about the way they are funding the project (and I don't actually like the specific way funding is being managed for this project), but all of it seems wrapped in dismissive comments about the library itself.
We pay managers salaries even though they often don't write any code, why is management of a widely used OSS project not deserving of funding on its own?
I've used standard for years, and I've never once had an issue with breaking changes. They've added features, fixed bugs, and even made changes that fixed issues that I personally raised with the project.
It's good software, and even though it looks trivial at a glance it took a LONG time and a lot of effort to get there, and every time I'm working on a project that doesn't use standard I'm quickly reminded of just how many of those edge cases they have handled for me.
I'm happy about the parts of this discussion that are about the way they are funding the project (and I don't actually like the specific way funding is being managed for this project), but all of it seems wrapped in dismissive comments about the library itself.