5 ms·

Sometimes you just say fuck it.

by xeromal 3y ago

zozbot234 3y ago
> Sometimes you just say fork it. FTFY. And vendoring a dependency is really just a hidden fork.
- pengaru 3y ago
  > FTFY. And vendoring a dependency is really just a hidden fork. It's not a fork until you start diverging from upstream with local modifications.
- mwcampbell 3y ago
  That raises the question: what is the current etiquette around deciding whether to pester a dependency's author to include your fixes or just fork it, especially if it looks like you will be the biggest user of that dependency? I'm dealing with that question for a dependency that I want to introduce in one of my crates, but ideally not until at least one of my own fixes is merged.
  - foverzar 3y ago
    Obviously fork it, implement your feature, battle-test it, fix and make it more generic, battle-test it again, then ask the maintainer if they would be interested in a pull request. I mean, implementing your fixes in the first place means you are already inherently forking it.
  - cocoa19 3y ago
    My thought process is: 1. You find a bug, open an issue. 2. If bug is a minor issue, wait. If I want a fix really bad, offer to fix it. 3. If I still want a fix really bad and author did not respond, or does not want a fix, then fork the project for my own consumption. Using alternative dependencies are also an option.
    - hughesjj 3y ago
      Yup, and forks don't have to be permanent. Imo be ready to fork all the things if need be. Get comfortable with it before you're forced to.
  - RussianCow 3y ago
    In my opinion, you should always ask the author first. Having your changes accessible from the primary repository is much easier and better for everyone, and there is a good chance the author is happy to accept your PRs. On the other hand, they might not agree with your proposal or might want to make significant changes to the design, at which point it becomes a personal tradeoff for you.
jcgrillo 3y ago
This is exactly what we all do every time we cargo update without reviewing the code changes in each dep (and their deps) wrt how they impact our compiled artifact. Ultimately we're each individually responsible for what we ship, and there's no amount of bureaucracy that will absolve us of the responsibility.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I think it is possible to build infrastructure that will allow entities to spread responsibility. They do it in other fields I think? For example I can’t imagine Ford checks literally every single individual component that gets put in their cars, right? I assume they have contracts and standards with manufacturers that make the parts, probably including random spot checks, but at some point to handle complexity it is necessary to trust/offload responsibility on some suppliers. I bet you could get those sort of guarantees from, like, Intel or IBM if people generally were willing to pay them enough (can you now? Not sure, probably depends on the specific package). But nobody would make that sort of promise for free. The transparency of the open source ecosystem is an alternative to that sort of thing, no promises but you can check everything. Just to be explicit (since I’m sure this looks like needless pedantry), I think it is important to remember that the open source and free software ecosystems are an active rejection of that sort of liability management framework, because that’s the only way to get contributions from a community of volunteers.
  - jcgrillo 3y ago
    There's something very different with software I think. For example, if a mechanism calls for a class 10.9 bolt with a certain diameter and thread pitch (let's say M6x1 for the sake of argument) then there are many different manufacturers who can supply equally suitable parts. They may each be dimensionally different, have different yield strengths, but they're all conforming to class 10.9 and dimensionally within tolerance. As the designer of the mechanical assembly I can trust the manufacturer of the bolts has a quality control procedure that'll make sure their bolts are good. As a software assembly designer, I don't really have any way to say "this subcomponent remains intact" when I integrate it into my system. The compiler will chew things up and rearrange them at link time. This is a good thing! It makes the resulting binary go brr real good. But it's ultimately my responsibility to make sure the thing I ship--the compiled artifact--is correct. It's not really a valid move to blame one of my dependencies. I was supposed to review those dependencies and make sure they work in the context of the thing I shipped. Wouldn't it be a bit like the mechanical assembly designer blaming the bolt manufacturer for a failure of a bolt they modified while building the assembly (EDIT: or blaming the supplier when the assembler used the bolt in a way it wasn't designed for)? What guarantees can the bolt manufacturer reasonably give in that case? EDIT: another thing is that source code isn't really analogous to a mechanical component. It's more like the design specification or blueprint for... something that converts electrical potential into heat and also does other stuff.

Sometimes you just say fuck it.

zozbot234 3y ago

> Sometimes you just say fork it. FTFY. And vendoring a dependency is really just a hidden fork.

pengaru 3y ago
> FTFY. And vendoring a dependency is really just a hidden fork. It's not a fork until you start diverging from upstream with local modifications.
mwcampbell 3y ago
That raises the question: what is the current etiquette around deciding whether to pester a dependency's author to include your fixes or just fork it, especially if it looks like you will be the biggest user of that dependency? I'm dealing with that question for a dependency that I want to introduce in one of my crates, but ideally not until at least one of my own fixes is merged.
- foverzar 3y ago
  Obviously fork it, implement your feature, battle-test it, fix and make it more generic, battle-test it again, then ask the maintainer if they would be interested in a pull request. I mean, implementing your fixes in the first place means you are already inherently forking it.
- cocoa19 3y ago
  My thought process is: 1. You find a bug, open an issue. 2. If bug is a minor issue, wait. If I want a fix really bad, offer to fix it. 3. If I still want a fix really bad and author did not respond, or does not want a fix, then fork the project for my own consumption. Using alternative dependencies are also an option.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    Yup, and forks don't have to be permanent. Imo be ready to fork all the things if need be. Get comfortable with it before you're forced to.
- RussianCow 3y ago
  In my opinion, you should always ask the author first. Having your changes accessible from the primary repository is much easier and better for everyone, and there is a good chance the author is happy to accept your PRs. On the other hand, they might not agree with your proposal or might want to make significant changes to the design, at which point it becomes a personal tradeoff for you.

jcgrillo 3y ago

This is exactly what we all do every time we cargo update without reviewing the code changes in each dep (and their deps) wrt how they impact our compiled artifact. Ultimately we're each individually responsible for what we ship, and there's no amount of bureaucracy that will absolve us of the responsibility.

bee_rider 3y ago
I think it is possible to build infrastructure that will allow entities to spread responsibility. They do it in other fields I think? For example I can’t imagine Ford checks literally every single individual component that gets put in their cars, right? I assume they have contracts and standards with manufacturers that make the parts, probably including random spot checks, but at some point to handle complexity it is necessary to trust/offload responsibility on some suppliers. I bet you could get those sort of guarantees from, like, Intel or IBM if people generally were willing to pay them enough (can you now? Not sure, probably depends on the specific package). But nobody would make that sort of promise for free. The transparency of the open source ecosystem is an alternative to that sort of thing, no promises but you can check everything. Just to be explicit (since I’m sure this looks like needless pedantry), I think it is important to remember that the open source and free software ecosystems are an active rejection of that sort of liability management framework, because that’s the only way to get contributions from a community of volunteers.
- jcgrillo 3y ago
  There's something very different with software I think. For example, if a mechanism calls for a class 10.9 bolt with a certain diameter and thread pitch (let's say M6x1 for the sake of argument) then there are many different manufacturers who can supply equally suitable parts. They may each be dimensionally different, have different yield strengths, but they're all conforming to class 10.9 and dimensionally within tolerance. As the designer of the mechanical assembly I can trust the manufacturer of the bolts has a quality control procedure that'll make sure their bolts are good. As a software assembly designer, I don't really have any way to say "this subcomponent remains intact" when I integrate it into my system. The compiler will chew things up and rearrange them at link time. This is a good thing! It makes the resulting binary go brr real good. But it's ultimately my responsibility to make sure the thing I ship--the compiled artifact--is correct. It's not really a valid move to blame one of my dependencies. I was supposed to review those dependencies and make sure they work in the context of the thing I shipped. Wouldn't it be a bit like the mechanical assembly designer blaming the bolt manufacturer for a failure of a bolt they modified while building the assembly (EDIT: or blaming the supplier when the assembler used the bolt in a way it wasn't designed for)? What guarantees can the bolt manufacturer reasonably give in that case? EDIT: another thing is that source code isn't really analogous to a mechanical component. It's more like the design specification or blueprint for... something that converts electrical potential into heat and also does other stuff.