5 ms·

Just FYI: in a situation where someone else is making money off other people’s unpaid labor, and then demanding they do more work for free to keep the $$$ flowi

Just FYI: in a situation where someone else is making money off other people’s unpaid labor, and then demanding they do more work for free to keep the $$$ flowing, the person doing the demanding is always the villain. I’ve been in the same situation as the requester and I did the thing any other sane, not-ridiculously-entitled developer would do: forked, patched myself, and then submitted back as a pull request.

rolisz 3y ago
But you wouldn't have permissions to release a new version (which is what is being asked).
- sickill 3y ago
  Releasing is work. It’s activity which takes time. You can’t expect someone will do it for you for free when you ask for it.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Nothing is stopping you from cutting a release whenever you want containing the fix.
arp242 3y ago
I didn't read it as "demanding"; asking a question is not "demanding". And to repeat: there is nothing to be patched. The fix is merely an update of a dependency, which already happened months ago. It is ONLY asking "when will you tag a new release?"
- x0x0 3y ago
  You know that's nonsense. It's not just tagging a release; the interlocutor is demanding real work, ie a full qa pass. A release means, in the real world, "we view this set of things as working, and have tested it as such. Likely including some baking in prod."
- account42 3y ago
  Asking about a timeline doesn't need you to mention your paying customers and government regulations. These are mentioned specifically to create a sense of urgency while being fully aware that you are relying on free labor. This wasn't someone asking an innocent question.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  The whole interaction has to be colored by what the person eventually sent in their email. In that light, it’s very much a demand. Do this unpaid work for me. Any request for recompense is extortion. Secondly, this is just semantics. Fork, update the dependency or whatever reference to it, and submit back as a pull request. Or maintain the forked repo yourself if it’s that mission critical.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > Secondly, this is just semantics. It's absolutely not "semantics", because the amount and type of work involved is radically different. Some bug is something I can fix myself with a patch; a new release isn't something I can do at all. > Fork, update the dependency or whatever reference to it, and submit back as a pull request. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN FIXED. How many times do I need to repeat this?
    - sickill 3y ago
      Releasing takes time or at least effort. It’s not like it happens on it own. It’s work.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Indeed, the maintainer has commented on this very post that more work than simply tagging a release is involved with fixing, as well as that the CVE impact on their repo is bogus because they’re not actually affected by it.
  - berkle4455 3y ago
    This is the key part half of HN can’t wrap their head around. Ron’s email clarifies his expectations and demands.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      The original request can be judged on it's own merits. We can also, simultaneously, judge the personality of the requester with all data considered. One does not exclude the other. I judge the original request to be reasonably worded, and I also judge the guy to be an asshat in light of the subsequent email.

rolisz 3y ago

But you wouldn't have permissions to release a new version (which is what is being asked).

sickill 3y ago
Releasing is work. It’s activity which takes time. You can’t expect someone will do it for you for free when you ask for it.
vlovich123 3y ago
Nothing is stopping you from cutting a release whenever you want containing the fix.

arp242 3y ago

I didn't read it as "demanding"; asking a question is not "demanding". And to repeat: there is nothing to be patched. The fix is merely an update of a dependency, which already happened months ago. It is ONLY asking "when will you tag a new release?"

x0x0 3y ago
You know that's nonsense. It's not just tagging a release; the interlocutor is demanding real work, ie a full qa pass. A release means, in the real world, "we view this set of things as working, and have tested it as such. Likely including some baking in prod."
account42 3y ago
Asking about a timeline doesn't need you to mention your paying customers and government regulations. These are mentioned specifically to create a sense of urgency while being fully aware that you are relying on free labor. This wasn't someone asking an innocent question.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
The whole interaction has to be colored by what the person eventually sent in their email. In that light, it’s very much a demand. Do this unpaid work for me. Any request for recompense is extortion. Secondly, this is just semantics. Fork, update the dependency or whatever reference to it, and submit back as a pull request. Or maintain the forked repo yourself if it’s that mission critical.
- arp242 3y ago
  > Secondly, this is just semantics. It's absolutely not "semantics", because the amount and type of work involved is radically different. Some bug is something I can fix myself with a patch; a new release isn't something I can do at all. > Fork, update the dependency or whatever reference to it, and submit back as a pull request. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN FIXED. How many times do I need to repeat this?
  - sickill 3y ago
    Releasing takes time or at least effort. It’s not like it happens on it own. It’s work.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Indeed, the maintainer has commented on this very post that more work than simply tagging a release is involved with fixing, as well as that the CVE impact on their repo is bogus because they’re not actually affected by it.
- berkle4455 3y ago
  This is the key part half of HN can’t wrap their head around. Ron’s email clarifies his expectations and demands.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    The original request can be judged on it's own merits. We can also, simultaneously, judge the personality of the requester with all data considered. One does not exclude the other. I judge the original request to be reasonably worded, and I also judge the guy to be an asshat in light of the subsequent email.