11–20 of 56 posts
Even though its deprecated, google did say Angular 1 was still supposed to be available as a fallback, and just closing issues and PRs is never correct, even if you are trying to phase it out.
The title is misleading, discussion linked has a clear explanation: > You are correct that many valid issues/bugs have been closed without resolution. > Our team simply does not have time to address all issues AND build Angular Material 2. (This is what we have consistently stated in our Forum posts). > We welcome community leadership with Pull Requests. Often those PRs have side affects, their scope of changes is to…
The title is misleading, discussion linked has a clear explanation: > You are correct that many valid issues/bugs have been closed without resolution. > Our team simply does not have time to address all issues AND build Angular Material 2. (This is what we have consistently stated in our Forum posts). > We welcome community leadership with Pull Requests. Often those PRs have side affects, their scope of changes is to…
The fact that you felt that you needed seven lines of pull-quotes to repudiate the "misleading" title is a pretty good indicator that titles are, um, titles and thus cannot carry as much information as one might want. But even after reading the material you quoted, I don't see the title of this submission as inaccurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you felt that you needed seven lines of pull-quotes to repudiate the "misleading" title is a pretty good indicator that titles are, um, titles and thus cannot carry as much information as one might want. But even after reading the material you quoted, I don't see the title of this submission as inaccurate.
Well, how about using the original title - "Surge Focus on Material 2"? It seems more appropriate as nothing in the discussion included a notice on deprecating the 1.x branch.
I am the author of a slightly popular CSS library [1] and JS library [2] and I feel the pain explained here, trying to keep up the pace of issues and PR is daunting. However, cmon Google! You are not a sole developer lost somewhere in Spain. Get your act together and really support your own libraries for a sensible amount of time. Or hire more people to do so. [1] http://picnicss.com/ [2] http://umbrellajs.com/
It seems to me that a major problem for Open Source in 2016 is assumption of support from the originating entity or person.
Does this base assumption not risk alienating individuals and organisations into saying, "Should I release this at all?".
Why should they hire people to support something which generates, as far as I can see, no revenue for Google?
I once included Google's V8 engine on a project I was working on. Google would regularly make breaking changes with no documentation. Developers were required to figure out the new interface on their own... occasionally you would find someone else on a forum somewhere who had reverse engineered it, saving you the time.
Sure, Google can do whatever they want. They have no obligation to people using their open-source projects. But he result is that many developers will be reluctant to use those projects in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you felt that you needed seven lines of pull-quotes to repudiate the "misleading" title is a pretty good indicator that titles are, um, titles and thus cannot carry as much information as one might want. But even after reading the material you quoted, I don't see the title of this submission as inaccurate.
I think removing the word "deprecated" would go a long way towards making the title less misleading.