31 Jul 15, 11:40AM
(31 Jul 15, 08:47AM)Luc@s Wrote: @ironzorg the reason why we kept it close source during that time was to allow us to develop it with all the freedom we need and leaving all the options open in case people are not interested in this community. the rest is irrelevant. Maybe you don't understand why because you don't know how the development is working in AC (or i should say, not working).
Actually I did write a few fixes for the game recently, and they were merged in and discussed in a fairly decent time. I created my own branch on the repo (although not publicly because one of the fixes was a security issue), sent the patch to the devs on IRC, and it got delt with within 1-2 weeks. I don't understand how creating your own branch/fork on github (in a public repository) would have not granted you the freedom you want to implement things, or how it "closed" some options.
(31 Jul 15, 08:47AM)Luc@s Wrote: And how do you know that ? Because, /afaik/, what i only got after 6 months from them was 1 positive vote here from XRD and a message from stef that says i can put some things on a separate branch. Thats all, after 6 months - but no discussion about the features, which indicates me if i make it open source it will remain sitting in its branch and never be used.
As stated previously, I myself didn't have any issue with contributing to the codebase (and I'm not an official developer for the project), so maybe you used the wrong approach to present your contributions. C.f. my rant about opensource, and stef's post.
(31 Jul 15, 08:47AM)Luc@s Wrote: What i want now, is to discuss, one by one, the features planned. Then, if my code appears to be good enough, we use it. Otherwise, we write it differently. Thats it.
That's good to hear, you could create a pull requests for every feature you would like to see merged upstream, and the commenting/discussing will happen on github (but you will have to open your fork's code for that).