4 ms·
That’s a bit over the top as you did have a hand in choosing to do that and not to fix linters / ignore those self-inflicted problems, instead opting to use a U
by cormacrelf 4y ago
That’s a bit over the top as you did have a hand in choosing to do that and not to fix linters / ignore those self-inflicted problems, instead opting to use a URL shortener and eventually get burned like everyone else who has ever done this. Their job is not to create an immutable historic record. You were never a customer of git.io. The goal was to shorten links because it was trendy.
- vemv 4y agoI've been a Github customer over 10 years. If you don't see the value of not breaking contracts (in the API sense), it is clear to me that your opinion isn't qualified.
- cormacrelf 4y agoYou can't escape the legal reality that you're demanding perpetual operation for no consideration merely by clarifying that you mean "contracts (in the API sense)". That was not part of your contract in either sense. If you wanted it to be forever, you should have paid for it.
- derefr 4y agoAny plan that assumes a service won't eventually go out of business is a bad plan.
- NavinF 4y agoDon’t most URL shorteners die in under 10 years? I see the value of not breaking API contracts, but some services are more known for breaking their contracts than others.
- shkkmo 4y agoAfter a couple of issues with broken links in code comments, I think the best approach is to link to an archive for the page in question (if public) since that has the original URL and makes the original content at the time of the link available as well.