Octave dev demands money to release bugfix that he already wrote
savannah.gnu.org
savannah.gnu.org
Dev requests a non-zero tip as sign of appreciation for fixing a rare and obscure bug in 6 hours, for a minority. For a tip over a certain threshold he offered to rework that existing fix (aka invest more time) to include it into the next stable/support release instead of in v-next.
(For the lazy people:He did exactly that after receiving a 75 USD gift certificate for Amazon)
Now, why is this title (to my non-native reading comprehension skills) negative, if patio11 is (again, and probably rightfully so) repeating his mantra of charging a higher rate in a sibling thread? 75 USD seems quite a good deal for 'someone works 6+ hours to fix a tricky bug that has a trivial workaround and is rare to begin with', right?
In a somewhat related fashion, I have a similar system that I apply to myself on some of my hobby projects. For the more serious ones, I aim to achieve near-100% code coverage in unit tests. One of the side effects is that everytime that I ponder adding a feature not out of need but out of curiosity, challenge or completeness, I ask myself: "do I care enough about it to write tests for it?" It's basically a litmus test for keeping bloat at bay.
It is said in the part about breaking API that it will just have to wait unless someone wants to pay him for the development fix or for him to make a fix worthy of the stable updates.
But yeah, these open source guys have a lot of nerve, not giving away stuff for free. How am I supposed to run a business with suppliers who can arbitrarily raise prices for future supply?