Re: ReSpec updated

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 20:26, Michael Cooper wrote:
> On 10/03/2016 2:17 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>> Nor should you.  I will dig it out.  I was just
        looking for a reference to something that exhibited the
        behavior.
> I was testing a local document prior to publishing live, but using
    the absolute reference to Respec. So hard to pass a URI.
>
>
    But as I mentioned in a part of the thread that crossed with this
    part, Shane's suggestion at the tail end of a telecon to force-
    refresh fixed it. I just hadn't expected that that should be
    necessary. So no need to spend time investigating.
>
>
    But nonetheless felt need to push back on "just submit a pull
    request" because that is a highly unrealistic expectation for most
    users of Respec. I have a couple times tried to learn the Respec
    code in order to submit pull requests but quickly got lost; there is
    no hope of taking time to do that when I'm trying to get a
    publication out under pressure of committed dates.

This feeling of entitlement to open-source software is why open-source
developers burn-out and end up abandoning development of their projects
altogether.

So what might seem a highly unrealistic expectation today, might be
something you'll have to figure out on your own in the not so
distant future.

That said, I don't have any insider information on Marcos and Shane's
plans. They might still be around in a decade working on Respec for
all I know.
 
--tobie