4 ms·
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing! This was created a year ago and Crates.io haven't taken it down so I assume they're ok with it.
by oars 3y ago
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing!
This was created a year ago and Crates.io haven't taken it down so I assume they're ok with it.
- goku12 3y agoThey should probably provide an official way of doing this with manual review.
- Sharlin 3y agoIndeed, but unfortunately the crates.io team is chronically understaffed.
- Arnavion 3y agoIt's not surprising. crates.io's stance on squatting or namespacing is to put their fingers in their ears and hope you stop asking them. https://crates.io/policies#squatting https://crates.io/policies#squatting Eg https://crates.io/users/swmon https://crates.io/users/swmon has squatted 100 empty crates since 2017.
- ChrisSD 3y agoNo their stance is to create RFC#3463[0] setting out a policy for handling name squatting and other issues. What they won't do is act unilaterally without a policy and accountability. [0]: https://github.com/Turbo87/rust-rfcs/blob/crates-io-policy-update/text/3463-crates-io-policy-update.md https://github.com/Turbo87/rust-rfcs/blob/crates-io-policy-u...
- Arnavion 3y agoI'll believe it when they actually do something, such as delete the garbage crates from my second link. These "policies" and "discussions" have been going on since 2014. Note that even your link is not an accepted RFC; it's still being reviewed ( https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3463 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3463 )
- burntsushi 3y agoYou've moving the goalposts. The point is that a written RFC and one that is under review is more than "put their fingers in their ears and hope you stop asking them."