6 ms·

He held the door open for a lot of people. Some people spit at him as they walked through. He doesn't want to hold the door open any more, he's done it enough.

by Touche 7y ago

He held the door open for a lot of people. Some people spit at him as they walked through. He doesn't want to hold the door open any more, he's done it enough. He didn't sign up to be a doorman for life.

saagarjha 7y ago
Right, and he can do that and that would be totally fine. People stop maintaining projects all the time. But by going out of his way to antagonize people (many of whom aren’t even the people who “spit” at him) he’s just not being very nice.
j-pb 7y ago
Just walk away then, no need to set the door on fire.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Just walk away then, no need to set the door on fire. That's what he is doing: simply walking away. But he doesn't owe you anything, and that'exactly what you are getting. It's astonishing how some people feel entitled to other people's life work. It's like you believe others owe you everything just because you like their work.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. that's ok though because the house has lots of other doors that are based on the door he was holding open, all people have to do is to go through the effort to find the best version of the door that is most like the door he was holding open before that he's bricked up and thus is not available for comparison anymore. I certainly think he had the right to do what he did, and the people who were rude deserved to have the door bricked up, but the people who read the notices he put up before hand about how he was holding open the door and it was a good way into the house might feel he is sort of a jerk.
    - rumanator 7y ago
      > he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. If you're interested in the project you can still access the source code. Hell, the author asked for volunteers to pick up where he left off. Yet, you're only complaining that he is no longer working for you and complying with your personal whims. That's the problem. A guy volunteers himself and donates his expertise and work to give you a gift, and in return some moochers just want to mooch off of him and, worse, attack him for not complying with their whims.
      - j-pb 7y ago
        Literally no one is complaining here that they no longer want to work on the project. It's all about the deleted code, and the damage he did to the community by yanking the project from its primary hub (which also kills all gitter conversations, links, build pipelines e.t.c.) >> the author even asked for volunteers citation needed
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        well, I already apologized elsewhere as I had misunderstood his personal repo to mean a private repo, but anyway I don't code in Rust, so no, I'm obviously not complaining that he is no longer working for me. This obviously means also that he has not given me a gift. Finally I am not sure what reasoning has led you to assume that if he gave me a gift moochers would want to mooch off of him, and how they would do so by virtue of him giving me a gift. Whatever reasoning it was, I'm forced to think there must have been little of it.
KirinDave 7y ago
This idea that replacing unsafe code with safe code is "spitting" is unhealthy in the extreme. I don't understand why the author felt so defensive about accepting packages. As far as I can tell, they've always had this attitude. Why even make a project open source if you don't want to consider patches? The whole idea is that even if you think a thing is boring, someone else may not and they'll do that work for the community. Weirdly, this is now some kind of grave affront to the maintainer who appears to take the idea that a compiler check could be added to their general framework as an insult.
- sophacles 7y ago
  > Why even make a project open source if you don't want to consider patches? The whole idea is that even if you think a thing is boring, someone else may not and they'll do that work for the community. This is a false dilemma - making a project open source can have plenty of motivations besides "I want to be a project manager for free!". Some other motivations: * Someone may find this useful even if I don't ever touch it again. * This could show others an example of a different way to solve a problem. * This is cool, look what I did! * Github is a free host, and there's no reason to keep this private. * I just need some code I wrote in a public place for hiring managers to peruse.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > This is a false dilemma - making a project open source can have plenty of motivations besides "I want to be a project manager for free!". Some other motivations: But isn't it also a false dilemma to suggest that the only lens by which you accept PRs is in the role of "project manager?" > Other reasons offered Sure but those are hypothetical. That's not what was going on here. The author of this diatribe was actively soliciting patches and maintaining the project publicly. We certainly aren't coercing him to take a role he didn't want (at least initially).
- undecisive 7y ago
  I know why I might. Here's an analogy for you. When you pour yourself a glass of pop, and you over-pour - do you then pour the drink back into the bottle? I know some people that would return that drink to the bottle, and some that would rather pour that little bit into the sink. Those that would "backwash" believe that the bottle will be fine - sure, you've maybe transferred a little bacteria in, but it probably won't cause any problems. Those that throw it away believe that the hygiene of the bottle - even from a clean glass - would otherwise be compromised. So if you come to my battle-tested codebase, and tell me "Hey, I've made you code better. It now has a theoretical metric of cleanness, instead of your proven metric of cleanness" - you may well have just introduced a bug. I now need to test your code, ensure it meets my real-world standards of cleanness. And maybe it does! Maybe your code has fixed a glacially-slow memory leak, but I won't see that. Maybe your code has introduced a complex interaction that none of my examples exploit, but other people's examples blow up because of it. Maybe the bottle of pop will be fine. Maybe in a couple of days time, when I have guests over, the unhealthy layer of scum floating in my mother-in-law's glass will make me look bad. Either way, it's a lot of work, and little certainty, and only theoretical benefit - vs no work, and full certainty in the real-world correctness of my code. And it's a question of which do I value more - my big bottle of pop, or the dribble you'd rather give me back.

by Touche 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

Right, and he can do that and that would be totally fine. People stop maintaining projects all the time. But by going out of his way to antagonize people (many of whom aren’t even the people who “spit” at him) he’s just not being very nice.

j-pb 7y ago

Just walk away then, no need to set the door on fire.

rumanator 7y ago
> Just walk away then, no need to set the door on fire. That's what he is doing: simply walking away. But he doesn't owe you anything, and that'exactly what you are getting. It's astonishing how some people feel entitled to other people's life work. It's like you believe others owe you everything just because you like their work.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. that's ok though because the house has lots of other doors that are based on the door he was holding open, all people have to do is to go through the effort to find the best version of the door that is most like the door he was holding open before that he's bricked up and thus is not available for comparison anymore. I certainly think he had the right to do what he did, and the people who were rude deserved to have the door bricked up, but the people who read the notices he put up before hand about how he was holding open the door and it was a good way into the house might feel he is sort of a jerk.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. If you're interested in the project you can still access the source code. Hell, the author asked for volunteers to pick up where he left off. Yet, you're only complaining that he is no longer working for you and complying with your personal whims. That's the problem. A guy volunteers himself and donates his expertise and work to give you a gift, and in return some moochers just want to mooch off of him and, worse, attack him for not complying with their whims.
    - j-pb 7y ago
      Literally no one is complaining here that they no longer want to work on the project. It's all about the deleted code, and the damage he did to the community by yanking the project from its primary hub (which also kills all gitter conversations, links, build pipelines e.t.c.) >> the author even asked for volunteers citation needed
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      well, I already apologized elsewhere as I had misunderstood his personal repo to mean a private repo, but anyway I don't code in Rust, so no, I'm obviously not complaining that he is no longer working for me. This obviously means also that he has not given me a gift. Finally I am not sure what reasoning has led you to assume that if he gave me a gift moochers would want to mooch off of him, and how they would do so by virtue of him giving me a gift. Whatever reasoning it was, I'm forced to think there must have been little of it.

KirinDave 7y ago

This idea that replacing unsafe code with safe code is "spitting" is unhealthy in the extreme. I don't understand why the author felt so defensive about accepting packages. As far as I can tell, they've always had this attitude. Why even make a project open source if you don't want to consider patches? The whole idea is that even if you think a thing is boring, someone else may not and they'll do that work for the community. Weirdly, this is now some kind of grave affront to the maintainer who appears to take the idea that a compiler check could be added to their general framework as an insult.

sophacles 7y ago
> Why even make a project open source if you don't want to consider patches? The whole idea is that even if you think a thing is boring, someone else may not and they'll do that work for the community. This is a false dilemma - making a project open source can have plenty of motivations besides "I want to be a project manager for free!". Some other motivations: * Someone may find this useful even if I don't ever touch it again. * This could show others an example of a different way to solve a problem. * This is cool, look what I did! * Github is a free host, and there's no reason to keep this private. * I just need some code I wrote in a public place for hiring managers to peruse.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > This is a false dilemma - making a project open source can have plenty of motivations besides "I want to be a project manager for free!". Some other motivations: But isn't it also a false dilemma to suggest that the only lens by which you accept PRs is in the role of "project manager?" > Other reasons offered Sure but those are hypothetical. That's not what was going on here. The author of this diatribe was actively soliciting patches and maintaining the project publicly. We certainly aren't coercing him to take a role he didn't want (at least initially).
undecisive 7y ago
I know why I might. Here's an analogy for you. When you pour yourself a glass of pop, and you over-pour - do you then pour the drink back into the bottle? I know some people that would return that drink to the bottle, and some that would rather pour that little bit into the sink. Those that would "backwash" believe that the bottle will be fine - sure, you've maybe transferred a little bacteria in, but it probably won't cause any problems. Those that throw it away believe that the hygiene of the bottle - even from a clean glass - would otherwise be compromised. So if you come to my battle-tested codebase, and tell me "Hey, I've made you code better. It now has a theoretical metric of cleanness, instead of your proven metric of cleanness" - you may well have just introduced a bug. I now need to test your code, ensure it meets my real-world standards of cleanness. And maybe it does! Maybe your code has fixed a glacially-slow memory leak, but I won't see that. Maybe your code has introduced a complex interaction that none of my examples exploit, but other people's examples blow up because of it. Maybe the bottle of pop will be fine. Maybe in a couple of days time, when I have guests over, the unhealthy layer of scum floating in my mother-in-law's glass will make me look bad. Either way, it's a lot of work, and little certainty, and only theoretical benefit - vs no work, and full certainty in the real-world correctness of my code. And it's a question of which do I value more - my big bottle of pop, or the dribble you'd rather give me back.