Giters

flosse / rust-web-framework-comparison

A comparison of some web frameworks and libs written in Rust

Geek Repo:Geek Repo

Github PK Tool:Github PK Tool

Why is Iron marked as deprecated?

xpe opened this issue · comments

commented

I don't think it is deprecated, since:

(Generally speaking, to mark something as deprecated, it is useful to point to a blog post or some official source for confirmation.)

commented

I was about to open this issue as well. I'm new to the rust world but it seems like iron is still under active development.

commented

Looks like iron/iron#576 marked iron as "not actively maintained", and then iron/iron#580 reverted that.

commented

Per iron/iron#580

As Iron is being maintained again and is about to release a new version using hyper 0.12, this note is removed in order to not discourage people from using iron.

commented

@flosse We've cited an authoritative source saying Iron is not deprecated.

commented

...so feel free to create a PR :)
BTW: Thanks for contributing!

commented

@flosse Would it be fair to say you can make the change in about as much time as it takes us to make the PR?

commented

I submitted the PR request for two main reasons: (1) Correcting mistakes feels good; (2) I didn't want anyone to be dissuaded from trying Iron based on incorrect information.

Meta Commentary

Now, I'd like to make a some meta-comments about the "...so feel free to create a PR :)" comment, above.

I would encourage people to question the following statement, which seems to be adopted as dogma by many people in open source:

every change to an open source file should be in the form of a pull request (even if the change is trivial)

I have found that pragmatism and weighing many perspectives is useful. Here are some other viewpoints to consider besides "the submit a PR if you care" cliche:

  • Strict adherence to rules that are not categorically true can be problematic. (For example, the dogma I mention above.) Adherence to inflexible, poorly fitting rules can often lead to responses that are not suited to particular situations and people.

  • If making a simple change yourself is faster than asking someone else to do it for you, why not do it yourself?

  • The author of content is ultimately responsible for its accuracy. So, if something you write is not true (because of a mistake or the passage of time), and you become aware of it, is it not your responsibility to fix it?

  • There is a big difference between one person asking for a feature to be developed in an open source project, such as NumPy, and a person offering a simple, factual correction to what is, essentially, a blog post.

  • Under what circumstances does it make sense to ask other people to correct your mistakes?

I know that some of this is rather pointed. I'm not trying to be prickly. I appreciate the work @flosse put into this write-up. I simply want to call awareness to some broader issues. Personally, I've probably just seen the phrase "feel free to create a PR" one too many times. When I see it written, it often seems to correspond with a lack of awareness around the broader, more important issues around interacting as a community.

To summarize, you could say I'm advocating for flexibility over dogma.

commented

@xpe Thanks for your Meta Commentary. I can see your points but why do you think it's faster if the repo owner makes a change?
Nevertheless, even if it would be faster it's still not my responsibility. I created this list for myself and everyone who uses this information is free to do with it whatever she/he wants.

And if you're interested in professional support don't hesitate to call me :)