Hello, I want to thank you for your contributions thus far and ask for some clarity about the governance of this library. This library was included in a core project before I came aboard my current company, and I am finding that having worked with it for a year, the documentation, usability, featureset, and general collaboration style of the maintainers leave a lot to be desired. I am sure I am not alone in discovering that:
a) there is worse than "no documentation" because there is a readme with stubs that indicate functionality, but instead of describing the code surface and ergonomics of implementing such functionality, links to a very old "demo website" where features are not clearly mapped to the thing that brought you there in the first place.
b) there are hundreds/thousands of issues dating back at least 5 years which have gone unanswered or partially attempted by other community members (sometimes pointed in another direction by maintainers), but because there is poor documentation, searching the issues still seems like the primary way to find information such as "how would I do this" or "what is the handler for this feature called" or "does this poorly documented piece of the library i found online still exist/has it been replaced".
c) i've stumbled across a few examples of community members addressing a very basic need such as "copy and paste" - which though the readme states RDG supports this, the reality is that it only supports copying from the RDG, and pasting back into the RDG - the handler for onPaste doesn't even get triggered if you've got data in the clipboard from an external source (the web, excel, etc). However, you can't even workaround this by adding a document event handler, because in the latest version individual cell selection state is not a feature users are allowed to access outside of the default callbacks like
onPaste. These are small mistakes/gaps, of course they arise in every project and should not be a source of shame or blame, and most importantly could be fixed by the people who first encounter them (the community). There are pull requests from months and years ago which provide fixes for these gaps, but nobody is merging them.
d) the only folks who are allowed to merge seem to be within the company, which feels...strange considering the backlog of issues. Are your hands tied as developers in that management won't allow outside contributions, but there aren't enough devs on staff to maintain it?
I understand the burden of providing an open source tool and appreciate this attempt and what it's provided us in the past, but I am almost to the point where I feel like I have been tricked by this project existing on github and having many of the attributes of open source projects, while instead being almost vendor-locked into a product that is built for a single customer (the company that is producing it).
Is this an open source project, are you interested in collaborating with the community to bring the library back to parity with its previous featureset (hopefully without the bugginess), or I am totally out of line and this is mostly just one company's project and other users have found a way to use it despite not being a stakeholder in its development? I respect either case, this is your project, but it would do a lot of people good to just say, "hey, this is a corporate thing and we wanted to make it open source but it got out of hand".
|Issue Title||Created Date||Updated Date|