4 ms·
Given the choice between maintaining a fork of a C standard library implementation and switching to an implementation that doesn't have this issue, the choice i
by xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
Given the choice between maintaining a fork of a C standard library implementation and switching to an implementation that doesn't have this issue, the choice is pretty clear.
It was pretty clear that musl was unwilling to support adding any TCP fallback code path regardless of a patch existing.
Anyways, your comment is inflammatory and is full of straw-men. Try being less of a dick.
- fefe23 3y ago[flagged]
- xyzzy_plugh 3y agoI don't use musl, so I don't have a horse in this race, but I wouldn't use it anyways because of issues like this one. Do they owe me anything? Of course not. Is anyone here claiming anything to the contrary? No. So what are you on about, exactly? This is the comment section on a website. Here we are discussing that the project maintainers kinda cocked this one up from a reputation and user trust perspective. If reputation, user trust and thus adoption are not a concern or goal of the project, then cool, good for them. It doesn't mean, however, that there isn't some reputation or user trust that was eroded. And it certainly doesn't mean we can't discuss it. For you to reply "what are you a child, just fork it and grow a pair, fix it yourself" is not constructive nor does it contribute to the discourse. Or did I put words in your mouth? Hm I wonder how that feels.