4 ms·
Okay, I massaged the GitHub API logs[0] with jq to make a readable version of the issue history[1]. I was firstly (based on the blog post) feeling bad about the
by pcr910303 7y ago
Okay, I massaged the GitHub API logs[0] with jq to make a readable version of the issue history[1]. I was firstly (based on the blog post) feeling bad about the maintainer... but after reading the issue report, it turns out multiple people were working on the issue and the author responded... 'this patch is boring'. That's... certainly not good to people who are trying to resolve the issue. He even goes to threatening to delete the organization if people talk about the issue.
[0] https://gist.github.com/bb010g/705c8ffe4b9db9550a7782d25e5a53be https://gist.github.com/bb010g/705c8ffe4b9db9550a7782d25e5a5...
[1] https://gist.github.com/pcr910303/d7722a26499d0e9d2f9034a06f2433b4 https://gist.github.com/pcr910303/d7722a26499d0e9d2f9034a06f...
- mratsim 7y agoThank you very much. Are there some deleted comments that might have been missed? If not the conversation was civil until the maintainer refused a patch for a "boring" reason.
- steveklabnik 7y agoAs I mentioned in the post, this situation has been going on for a long time. You'd need to read a few dozen pages to get the full context here.
- Izkata 7y agoNot quite correct. That patch was never intended to be merged as-is in the first place: > As a PoC > Presumably this requires benchmarking/more exhaustive testing which I don't have time to do, but if someone wants to take the patch and get it merged feel free Keeping that in mind, the "boring" comment comes off differently to me, like they got sidetracked from the original issue and he didn't feel like continuing - which is nearly the confirmation given in the second issue.