4 ms·

At the time, Steve agreed to share the email transcript from this incident: https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/5f6ae83ffc961215cb82f1a98f78a020e9309484 https://past

At the time, Steve agreed to share the email transcript from this incident: https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/5f6ae83ffc961215cb82f1a98f78a020e9309484 https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/5f6ae83ffc961215cb82f1a98f78a0... Judge for yourself if we were out of line. Steve's repository was basically an archive of his Instagram account, hundreds of high-resolution images. This is not what SourceHut is designed for. Mercurial repositories in particular have an outsized impact, because we generate nightly clonebundles from larger repos, and because images are uncompressible this results in a disproportionately large amount of wasted CPU time and disk space. We updated our approach, in any case, to use the following email template instead: https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/3d32eb7bbc564170c3d30f041e5e8dc71aa5a1c6 https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/3d32eb7bbc564170c3d30f041e5e8d... And we expanded on acceptable use in the documentation: https://man.sr.ht/hg.sr.ht/#acceptable-resource-usage https://man.sr.ht/hg.sr.ht/#acceptable-resource-usage

hitekker 6y ago
Yikes. The first few emails were mostly professional and the entire encounter could have been resolved by line 63. But you kept emailing him. It's like you were offended by his dissatisfaction and wanted to "disprove" his feelings: > Hg was not designed to store large blobs, and it puts an unreasonable strain on our servers that most users don't burden us with That unnecessary follow-up made him want to move all of his other repos off platform. So, you lashed out: > As someone who contributed to Mercurial as recently as 2011, I'm sure you're aware of this... This email thread started out as a heads up and ended with you losing a customer, for no good reason.
- ddevault 6y ago
  At the time this thread first came up, I agreed that my sarcastic response to his Mercurial contributorship comment was out of line, and apologised for that. Others who have read this thread came away with a different impression than you did. I tried to explain why it was a problem, rather than just leaving them put out. Personally, I prefer this approach over the cold, unfeeling notification from a robot that noticed your repo was oversized. Human admins is a feature of sourcehut, and human failures of communication occasionally occur as a result. Anyway, the facts are laid out, and I'm not particularly enthusiastic about rehashing this discussion again, 10 months later, in an unrelated post celebrating our anniversary.
  - mst 6y ago
    The root comment here appears to be the only currently extant comment of a relatively new and otherwise minimally active account. I sincerely doubt any (further) engagement on your part is actually worthwile.
    - tyfytyf 6y ago
      True.
- mst 6y ago
  Honestly, that email explaining the decision explicitly that he decided to FYIQ over was entirely reasonable. Him responding by being passive aggressive about canceling his account was the first rude email in the thread.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDO24U3hMkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDO24U3hMkU - "100% right and 100% fired" (50mins) Honestly maybe Drew has the right to choose how he runs his service, but who gives a shit? He's taking money, nobody owes him. If you have to care about hosting details anyway, it's probably less of a hassle to self-host. How much do you think the 1GB and processing actually cost? 1GB is surely less than a dollar, and the processing could either be special-cased or would not be more than $5/month for the duration until they get proper large-file support. Meanwhile, the client's first comment on "surely 1.1gb" reads to me as saying "why are you wasting my time?", and Drew's response seemed to say "this is not an isolated incident, this is just how I operate", to which the "I've canceled my account because this is bullshit" is IMO entirely appropriate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
StavrosK 6y ago
> As someone who contributed to Mercurial as recently as 2011, I'm sure you're aware of this. Haha
mtlynch 6y ago
Sourcehut's decision and communication both seem reasonable to me. I think both parties could have maybe been a bit more genial, but the discussion remained professional throughout in my eyes.

hitekker 6y ago

Yikes. The first few emails were mostly professional and the entire encounter could have been resolved by line 63. But you kept emailing him. It's like you were offended by his dissatisfaction and wanted to "disprove" his feelings: > Hg was not designed to store large blobs, and it puts an unreasonable strain on our servers that most users don't burden us with That unnecessary follow-up made him want to move all of his other repos off platform. So, you lashed out: > As someone who contributed to Mercurial as recently as 2011, I'm sure you're aware of this... This email thread started out as a heads up and ended with you losing a customer, for no good reason.

ddevault 6y ago
At the time this thread first came up, I agreed that my sarcastic response to his Mercurial contributorship comment was out of line, and apologised for that. Others who have read this thread came away with a different impression than you did. I tried to explain why it was a problem, rather than just leaving them put out. Personally, I prefer this approach over the cold, unfeeling notification from a robot that noticed your repo was oversized. Human admins is a feature of sourcehut, and human failures of communication occasionally occur as a result. Anyway, the facts are laid out, and I'm not particularly enthusiastic about rehashing this discussion again, 10 months later, in an unrelated post celebrating our anniversary.
- mst 6y ago
  The root comment here appears to be the only currently extant comment of a relatively new and otherwise minimally active account. I sincerely doubt any (further) engagement on your part is actually worthwile.
  - tyfytyf 6y ago
    True.
mst 6y ago
Honestly, that email explaining the decision explicitly that he decided to FYIQ over was entirely reasonable. Him responding by being passive aggressive about canceling his account was the first rude email in the thread.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDO24U3hMkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDO24U3hMkU - "100% right and 100% fired" (50mins) Honestly maybe Drew has the right to choose how he runs his service, but who gives a shit? He's taking money, nobody owes him. If you have to care about hosting details anyway, it's probably less of a hassle to self-host. How much do you think the 1GB and processing actually cost? 1GB is surely less than a dollar, and the processing could either be special-cased or would not be more than $5/month for the duration until they get proper large-file support. Meanwhile, the client's first comment on "surely 1.1gb" reads to me as saying "why are you wasting my time?", and Drew's response seemed to say "this is not an isolated incident, this is just how I operate", to which the "I've canceled my account because this is bullshit" is IMO entirely appropriate.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

StavrosK 6y ago

> As someone who contributed to Mercurial as recently as 2011, I'm sure you're aware of this. Haha

mtlynch 6y ago

Sourcehut's decision and communication both seem reasonable to me. I think both parties could have maybe been a bit more genial, but the discussion remained professional throughout in my eyes.