TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Rules for Open Source Success

89 点作者 c-rack超过 9 年前

10 条评论

lighthawk超过 9 年前
&quot;1. People Before Code&quot;<p>Agreed, but if you are the only user, serve yourself first on the project. If you determine that you can&#x27;t serve yourself and others at the same time, it might be a bad road you are going down.<p>&quot;2. Use a Share-Alike License&quot;<p>First, RMS hates the term &quot;open-source&quot;, so it&#x27;s funny that the idea is to promote GPL here. On top of that, you call for a share-alike license, which is a term used mostly for creative commons licenses, which are usually for creative works.<p>The license matters, but most people suggest Apache. (L)GPL v3 (not v2) is also great if you don&#x27;t want it to be integrated into business products. I&#x27;m not sure why you&#x27;d want to use MPL v2 unless you are writing something for a Mozilla product? If you don&#x27;t give a crap about your rights, choose MIT. Then, use a Creative Commons license for creative works that aren&#x27;t free.<p>&quot;3. Use an Zero-Consensus Process&quot;<p>&quot;Merge first, fix later&quot;<p>No, don&#x27;t do that. I understand you are trying to keep other forks from taking over, but you shouldn&#x27;t allow everything. I&#x27;ve rejected some bad PRs before because the developer didn&#x27;t understand what they were doing. There&#x27;s no reason to merge that and then undo it. Explain to them what they are doing wrong and refuse the merge- then they will either fix it or you save yourself the trouble of having to undo it.<p>&quot;4. Problem, then Solution&quot;<p>&quot;Every patch must be a minimal solution to a solid problem&quot; is wrong. New features may not relate to a problem you or others are trying to solve.<p>&quot;5. Contracts Before Internals&quot;<p>Not every project needs its API documented to be successful.<p>&quot;7. Write Down the Rules&quot;<p>Those rules for ZeroMQ are really aggressive sounding. You don&#x27;t have to use those. I think it&#x27;s fine to just point people to docs about the PR process and information on how to build, test, release, etc.
评论 #10258851 未加载
评论 #10258797 未加载
评论 #10258760 未加载
评论 #10258430 未加载
评论 #10258480 未加载
评论 #10259073 未加载
评论 #10259970 未加载
评论 #10258982 未加载
pif超过 9 年前
&gt; I&#x27;m speaking about free software aka open source<p>After 25 years of experience, one would expect some acknowledgement of the difference between the two concepts.
评论 #10258219 未加载
评论 #10258548 未加载
评论 #10258151 未加载
评论 #10262051 未加载
评论 #10258462 未加载
stared超过 9 年前
I am totally for Open Source (and Open Science), but I dislike copyleft licenses (cf. &quot;2. Use a Share-Alike License&quot;).<p>And while Share Alike have their (good) use-cases, IMHO it is bad to recommend them as the default; the best standard is CC-BY or MIT&#x2F;BSD.<p>Why? For me &quot;open&quot; means &quot;open&quot; - i.e. can be used by anyone, for anything (not &quot;open, but only for the openness believers... and only of the same creed&quot;). All share-alike clauses have issues:<p>- viriality (you have to get infec... I mean: accept another license instead of the one you are using),<p>- kosher rules (e.g. you can&#x27;t combine GPL with CC-BY-SA).<p>So, with the openness, you can&#x27;t beat the WTFPL (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wtfpl.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wtfpl.net&#x2F;</a>).
评论 #10258190 未加载
评论 #10258099 未加载
评论 #10258006 未加载
评论 #10257988 未加载
评论 #10258572 未加载
mpdehaan2超过 9 年前
Lots of advice I disagree with here, testing coverage completely matters. It&#x27;s not the most important thing, but it&#x27;s very important.<p>I stopped reading at &quot;merge first, fix later&quot;. OUCH!
评论 #10258798 未加载
评论 #10262081 未加载
评论 #10258764 未加载
jakobegger超过 9 年前
The title is very misleading. Yes, those ten rules may work well for one project. But they are not at all applicable in general. The Open Source world is way more heterogenous than that.<p>For example, my current favourite Open Source project uses a permissive license, always finds consensus on the mailing list before pushing to master, and is huge. Which is in blatant violation of rules 2,3 and 9 from the article. And it&#x27;s been growing in popularity for decades.<p>There is no such thing as general rules for Open Source projects.
davexunit超过 9 年前
Came here expecting all of the HN startup people to dismiss copyleft. Wasn&#x27;t disappointed.<p>I don&#x27;t like the &quot;merge first, fix later&quot; advice, but I&#x27;m happy to see someone promoting the use of copyleft licenses. Thank you! You get it.
barbs超过 9 年前
&gt; &quot;10. Be Happy and Pleasant&quot;<p>Glad to see this one in here. It seems like too many open-source project communities are incredibly hostile to newcomers or people with differing opinions. Linus Torvalds comes to mind.
评论 #10259100 未加载
jsargiox超过 9 年前
Try to match these rules with the linux kernel project... you&#x27;ll be surprised...
blainesch超过 9 年前
When did submodules become &quot;fancy&quot; ?
jevgeni超过 9 年前
If you love it, public domain it.
评论 #10259125 未加载
评论 #10259610 未加载