5 ms·

did you read the update in the article? The Go team contact him directly and in private, as well as accepted responsibility for the situation regarding all smal

by 2h 4y ago

did you read the update in the article? The Go team contact him directly and in private, as well as accepted responsibility for the situation regarding all small sites, not just SourceHut. So his actions did have an impact.

morelisp 4y ago
I did read it. I also read Go 1.19's release notes when they came out. I also read rsc's reply to the original post. I cannot figure out how Drew went back in time to add -reuse to Go 1.19 and proxy improvements to the Go team's schedule prior to the Go team contacting him in private.
- 2h 4y ago
  > Drew went back in time to add -reuse to Go 1.19 and proxy improvements to the Go team's schedule where did anyone say that?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    You did, when you wrote the words "Because of his actions", is I think what they're saying.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      Yes. As far as I can tell, the only relevant action sr.ht did was to open #44577 originally. Everything else since then appears to be sound and fury.
    - svnpenn 4y ago
      well, he could have done nothing, and where would we be? if you say "exactly where we are now", I think you are being dishonest with how the situation played out. No, he didn't write the code or make the schedule, but he stood up and said "this is not right", and took steps to protect his and other small sites.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        To be clearer: I think what's being said upthread is: Go was making this change anyways. (I have no idea if that's true.)
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I think the context you're missing is that Drew caused a stink about this already back in 2021, the blacklisting was just the last iteration of the saga. So I'm not sure if his posting caused the Google team to rethink their stance, but it certainly caused quite a bit of bad publicity for Google.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      I think you're being downvoted for stomping on the collective hacker news fantasy. The fantasy is maybe something like "google (mainstream tech, go, java, ...) is big and bad, and we're small and heroic". The fantasy is so attractive to people here that they will plug their ears and downvote you for pointing out: * Drew was being stubborn/childish in his original post * He claimed to be doing it on principle, but nothing has changed to satisfy his principles between then and now * The only actual change is that he got special attention from Russ, in addition to the original offered change (which he previously claimed was inadequate). Thus, a detached observer would conclude that Drew's interests were not what he claimed. They might even conclude that his real interest was engaging in this Hacker News fantasy, or getting attention from Russ, or attention from the community. Instead, spewed throughout this comments sections are longwinded and complex explanations to try and avoid the simple conclusion that Drew was (conscious or not) pursuing other aims than he claimed.
      - jdiff 4y ago
        Thank you, you're the first person to point out that him taking the temporary solution that was offered years ago after several angry blog posts about how it was unacceptable in principle or practice is inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst.
ddevault 4y ago
This is indeed the main difference. The reason that agreed that the plan was suitable was the combination of the ongoing work on incorporating -reuse with the Go module mirror and the Go teams decision to accept responsibility for the traffic and to exercise their discretion in moderating it for each affected third-party without requiring them to explicitly reach out to Google to opt out. Russ also graciously elaborated on the engineering thought-process going on within the Go team the implications of disabling the refresh on third-parties, which had not been done prior to our communications in the past couple of weeks. There's still work to be done, but so long as work is moving forward and the Go team is communicative and pro-active about addressing the problem, then our concerns were satisfied, and I'm glad that we were able to address the issue.

by 2h 4y ago

morelisp 4y ago

I did read it. I also read Go 1.19's release notes when they came out. I also read rsc's reply to the original post. I cannot figure out how Drew went back in time to add -reuse to Go 1.19 and proxy improvements to the Go team's schedule prior to the Go team contacting him in private.

2h 4y ago
> Drew went back in time to add -reuse to Go 1.19 and proxy improvements to the Go team's schedule where did anyone say that?
- tptacek 4y ago
  You did, when you wrote the words "Because of his actions", is I think what they're saying.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    Yes. As far as I can tell, the only relevant action sr.ht did was to open #44577 originally. Everything else since then appears to be sound and fury.
  - svnpenn 4y ago
    well, he could have done nothing, and where would we be? if you say "exactly where we are now", I think you are being dishonest with how the situation played out. No, he didn't write the code or make the schedule, but he stood up and said "this is not right", and took steps to protect his and other small sites.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      To be clearer: I think what's being said upthread is: Go was making this change anyways. (I have no idea if that's true.)
cycomanic 4y ago
I think the context you're missing is that Drew caused a stink about this already back in 2021, the blacklisting was just the last iteration of the saga. So I'm not sure if his posting caused the Google team to rethink their stance, but it certainly caused quite a bit of bad publicity for Google.
- morelisp 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    I think you're being downvoted for stomping on the collective hacker news fantasy. The fantasy is maybe something like "google (mainstream tech, go, java, ...) is big and bad, and we're small and heroic". The fantasy is so attractive to people here that they will plug their ears and downvote you for pointing out: * Drew was being stubborn/childish in his original post * He claimed to be doing it on principle, but nothing has changed to satisfy his principles between then and now * The only actual change is that he got special attention from Russ, in addition to the original offered change (which he previously claimed was inadequate). Thus, a detached observer would conclude that Drew's interests were not what he claimed. They might even conclude that his real interest was engaging in this Hacker News fantasy, or getting attention from Russ, or attention from the community. Instead, spewed throughout this comments sections are longwinded and complex explanations to try and avoid the simple conclusion that Drew was (conscious or not) pursuing other aims than he claimed.
    - jdiff 4y ago
      Thank you, you're the first person to point out that him taking the temporary solution that was offered years ago after several angry blog posts about how it was unacceptable in principle or practice is inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst.

ddevault 4y ago

This is indeed the main difference. The reason that agreed that the plan was suitable was the combination of the ongoing work on incorporating -reuse with the Go module mirror and the Go teams decision to accept responsibility for the traffic and to exercise their discretion in moderating it for each affected third-party without requiring them to explicitly reach out to Google to opt out. Russ also graciously elaborated on the engineering thought-process going on within the Go team the implications of disabling the refresh on third-parties, which had not been done prior to our communications in the past couple of weeks. There's still work to be done, but so long as work is moving forward and the Go team is communicative and pro-active about addressing the problem, then our concerns were satisfied, and I'm glad that we were able to address the issue.