4 ms·
>The money didn't go towards the author. Perhaps many would have refused to donate if they knew that the project would be archived in a year. Collecting for au
by hakavlad 1y ago
>The money didn't go towards the author.
Perhaps many would have refused to donate if they knew that the project would be archived in a year. Collecting for audit and then archiving the project is, in a way, a violation of expectations.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoDid they perform the audit? That is what is important. The more and more you start modifying code after the audit, the more and more useless the audit becomes.
- hakavlad 1y agoYes, they performed.
- ranger_danger 1y ago> That is what is important Depends on your perspective... If I'd known the project was going to stop soon after I donated, I probably wouldn't donate, even if the purpose of the money was strictly for an audit.
- pavel_lishin 1y agoWould they have refused to donate if they knew the author would be hit by a bus in a year? Or hired by someone who refused to allow them to continue working on it? I don't think the author had explicit plans to do this a year ago.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoDid the author do the audit? Is the audit available? If so, then they did what people donated for. End of story.
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoWhat are expectations? Audit is invalidated by the first change after it, so archivation is basically necessary. VeraCrypt was audited too, lol.