5 ms·

thats a cop out. If he accepted the quick fix, then Go team could just say "well it works for him, so now we dont need to do the full fix", or maybe they decide

by 2h 4y ago

thats a cop out. If he accepted the quick fix, then Go team could just say "well it works for him, so now we dont need to do the full fix", or maybe they decide to slow play it. It was nearly two years, enough is enough.

tptacek 4y ago
Is that actually true? Does the timeline of the change the Go team is rolling out corroborate the claim?
- 2h 4y ago
  did you read the update to the article, as it answers that question
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Can you be more specific? Is it updated in multiple places?
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      Russ commented in the original discussion that there was planned work to address Drew's issue (and more). From the update in this article, it appears that Drew is referring to that work. There is no indication in what I have read that the timeline for it has changed due to this drama.
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        "Planned work" could mean it's sitting on an issue tracker somewhere, perpetually getting pushed back, because it's low priority and/or because someone actively doesn't want it to happen.
        tptacek 4y ago
        It could mean a lot of things, couldn't it?
arp242 4y ago
I don't agree with that at all. The "real fix" just took time; you can argue it took "too much time", but, well, lots of things do. They were working on a long-term solution, and offering a short-term solution while that's being worked on is reasonable. Certainly better than doing nothing at all. The main problem is none of this was communicated very well.
- alpaca128 4y ago
  > They were working on a long-term solution You really think the team worked for two years on a solution while banning the issue reporter and keeping radio silence, and then by pure coincidence got it ready shortly after a complete block of their service was announced?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Once again: the reporter was banned for reasons that seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue here. We don't have to go into the details of this if DeVault doesn't want to; it's enough to say that the narrative that Google blocked him to shut him up about the Go Module Proxy seems implausible at this point. I don't see him saying that in the first place! But people here are.
    - stonogo 4y ago
      "We don't have have to go into the details of this" is disingenuous. We can't go into this because he was banned in violation of their own policies for a second time. I agree it likely wasn't related to their DDoS machine, given the past history of bickering between these two parties, but we can't know because Go's own processes were bypassed and someone just arbitrarily lowered the boom. You can carry all the water you want for the Go people, but their handling of this is unprofessional, and it's not the first time they've treated non-Googlers with utter disrespect for no particular gain. This behavior dates back at least as far as issue #9 in their original bug tracker[1], when the most they could muster for their part was the "Unfortunate" bug label, presumably as in "it's unfortunate for you that we're going to do whatever the hell we want." Go's biggest problem isn't generics, or modules, or the infrastructure, or any other technical issue; it's that the creators are the worst sort of ivory-tower academics who have never had to cooprate with anyone outside their friend circle. They get away with it because they ensconce themselves as a club in organizations who can afford to pay people to work in DevRel vacuums, and I'm sure they consider themselves very successful, but Go is easily the most toxically-run language project since the BFDL days of glibc. I have it easy, since I have the autonomy to decide never to get involved with these people, but not everyone has that privilege, and you're not doing the situation any favors by torchbearing for jerks. https://github.com/golang/go/issues/9 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/9

by 2h 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

Is that actually true? Does the timeline of the change the Go team is rolling out corroborate the claim?

2h 4y ago
did you read the update to the article, as it answers that question
- tptacek 4y ago
  Can you be more specific? Is it updated in multiple places?
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Russ commented in the original discussion that there was planned work to address Drew's issue (and more). From the update in this article, it appears that Drew is referring to that work. There is no indication in what I have read that the timeline for it has changed due to this drama.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      "Planned work" could mean it's sitting on an issue tracker somewhere, perpetually getting pushed back, because it's low priority and/or because someone actively doesn't want it to happen.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        It could mean a lot of things, couldn't it?

arp242 4y ago

I don't agree with that at all. The "real fix" just took time; you can argue it took "too much time", but, well, lots of things do. They were working on a long-term solution, and offering a short-term solution while that's being worked on is reasonable. Certainly better than doing nothing at all. The main problem is none of this was communicated very well.

alpaca128 4y ago
> They were working on a long-term solution You really think the team worked for two years on a solution while banning the issue reporter and keeping radio silence, and then by pure coincidence got it ready shortly after a complete block of their service was announced?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 4y ago
  Once again: the reporter was banned for reasons that seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue here. We don't have to go into the details of this if DeVault doesn't want to; it's enough to say that the narrative that Google blocked him to shut him up about the Go Module Proxy seems implausible at this point. I don't see him saying that in the first place! But people here are.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    "We don't have have to go into the details of this" is disingenuous. We can't go into this because he was banned in violation of their own policies for a second time. I agree it likely wasn't related to their DDoS machine, given the past history of bickering between these two parties, but we can't know because Go's own processes were bypassed and someone just arbitrarily lowered the boom. You can carry all the water you want for the Go people, but their handling of this is unprofessional, and it's not the first time they've treated non-Googlers with utter disrespect for no particular gain. This behavior dates back at least as far as issue #9 in their original bug tracker[1], when the most they could muster for their part was the "Unfortunate" bug label, presumably as in "it's unfortunate for you that we're going to do whatever the hell we want." Go's biggest problem isn't generics, or modules, or the infrastructure, or any other technical issue; it's that the creators are the worst sort of ivory-tower academics who have never had to cooprate with anyone outside their friend circle. They get away with it because they ensconce themselves as a club in organizations who can afford to pay people to work in DevRel vacuums, and I'm sure they consider themselves very successful, but Go is easily the most toxically-run language project since the BFDL days of glibc. I have it easy, since I have the autonomy to decide never to get involved with these people, but not everyone has that privilege, and you're not doing the situation any favors by torchbearing for jerks. https://github.com/golang/go/issues/9 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/9