3 ms·
That's not exactly the same as choosing to use something that is hosted on someone else's server, which they could then subsequently modify now that you are usi
by inimino 10y ago
That's not exactly the same as choosing to use something that is hosted on someone else's server, which they could then subsequently modify now that you are using it in a very high-profile project.
Of course, judging candidates' by the code quality of their campaign websites is a rather obscure and somewhat useless pastime.
- GrinningFool 10y agoTrue (on both counts). And yet it's common practice to include libs, fonts, and other bits from third party sites that the dev has no control over
- TeMPOraL 10y agoIt's a stupid and lazy practice. It's common because most web developers aren't exactly highly trained specialists who know what they're doing.
- Aaron1011 10y agoI agree that it's still bad practice. My main objection was to the statement "Since GitHub is for open-source projects, it also meant that any user could submit a request to modify the code and impact Trump’s website". If don't trust the maintainers' judgement in merging PRs, hosting it yourself isn't a solution (short of reviewing the entire project yourself).
- infinite8s 10y agoI think the concern here is that the maintainer could subsequently merge a malicious PR knowing who was using the library from GitHub. That wouldn't be an issue if that group was hosting a version themselves (before the maintainer might find out who was using it).