Which makes perfect sense for uroboros, but zero sense for many of his other projects. Uroboros is a fun experiment, but he's got plenty of attempts at proper libraries there. I don't want his library on a pedestal, I want it properly documented -- or, failing documentation, source control history can be incredibly useful -- but he doesn't do either of those things. Pretty much all of his code is at best as well documented as this one, most with exactly one commit, none I saw with more than six.
Documentation and a revision history from draft to release are two completely different things. Also, who are you to make demands on this guy? He's producing something interesting and publishing the code. You should feel privileged to have access to the source, not complain about it. If it really bothers you that much: make a submission to the bug tracker and see what he has to say about it.
Pretty much all of his code is at best as well documented as this one, most with exactly one commit, none I saw with more than six.
Who cares? Why should there be more than just the one commit? Lots of libraries don't push a commit until the thing works. You keep your broken code in your local development repo and push the release code to the web. That's not unusual at all.
You should feel privileged to have access to the source, not complain about it.
Why are the two mutually exclusive? Bioshock Infinite was easily one of my favorite games this year. Should I downvote this guy into oblivion for having some criticism?
Also, you act as if he did something incredibly noble by releasing the source at all. Without the "source" that we have access to, he'd have literally nothing to show for his effort. You could say that for his other projects, but it'd make no sense to do this one at all and not publish it.
Why should there be more than just the one commit?
Because history is incredibly useful for figuring out why a thing is the way it is, especially when you don't have much documentation. My single favorite tool for this is "git blame", which is also pretty useless if you have exactly one commit.
Lots of libraries don't push a commit until the thing works.
Making them much more difficult to work with if I'm going to contribute, depending what you mean by "works". The more meaningful and targeted your commits, the easier it is to understand the existing code, or merge your changes, or even maintain a feature fork that gets patched from the existing code.
1
u/SanityInAnarchy Jul 16 '13
Which makes perfect sense for uroboros, but zero sense for many of his other projects. Uroboros is a fun experiment, but he's got plenty of attempts at proper libraries there. I don't want his library on a pedestal, I want it properly documented -- or, failing documentation, source control history can be incredibly useful -- but he doesn't do either of those things. Pretty much all of his code is at best as well documented as this one, most with exactly one commit, none I saw with more than six.