3 ms·
I never disagreed with that. I agree that not only was their implementation of the API unwise, but it was done incorrectly. However, with that being said and do
by stanmancan 11y ago
I never disagreed with that. I agree that not only was their implementation of the API unwise, but it was done incorrectly. However, with that being said and done, the author had a choice to either help find a temporary solution, or leave them high and dry. He opted for the later, and that's the part I disagree with. It wasn't his fault, but he had a chance to make a significant impact for fellow developers (who probably did not implement the API), and more importantly a ton of unsuspecting people at home, and chose not to.
- dpark 11y agoI don't know why he didn't offer to host it for the two-week period in exchange for reimbursement for the cost of running the service, or cost+20% if he wasn't feeling charitable. That seems like the obvious mutually-beneficial solution. And if they turned him down, then it's purely on them at that point.
- donatj 11y agoThis. This is what I would have done. I get a lot of emails with special requests along these lines. I used to do the simple ones for free and just ignore the larger ones, but my dear friend told me just tell them your hourly rate. It turns away the non serious and keeps the ones that really need it, and either way benefits you.
- rdancer 11y agoI speculate that after a week-end of nightmare, he was just happy to have implemented a solution that offloaded those trillions of requests onto GitHub, has put it behind him, and was not quite eager to make it his problem again.