5 ms·

Spamming an open source developer with angry comments because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write and publish freely is not normal.

by akerl_ 5mo ago

dragontamer 5mo ago
This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups. I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.
- akerl_ 5mo ago
  > Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer Why are you hedging this? Do you think maybe it is socially acceptable?
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dragontamer 5mo ago
    This isn't a hedge at all. There is likely an English mistake/misinterpretstion being made here. I am a native English speaker btw.
    - akerl_ 5mo ago
      Do you believe the comments in this GitHub issue are acceptable social discourse towards an open source maintainer?
      - dragontamer 5mo ago
        The first comment, which is a screenshot from Mastodon, is perfectly acceptable. There is a clear regression between newer versions of rsync. Then egos got bruised and things leave the realm of reason soon after. But coming with a request saying "Version X worked while version Y doesn't", with maybe some degree of annoyance, is fine.
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        The title of the original issue, by the original issue submitter, is “Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software”.
        dragontamer 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        The target of the issue title is pretty clearly the maintainer. They’re the one being told to stop using AI. I guess this answers the question of whether you think maybe it’s ok to spit in the face of open source developers.
        jodrellblank 5mo ago
        “Maybe don’t do that?” does not mean “I support you doing that” no matter how unfamiliar you are with it as an idiom. “I cut my finger with the kitchen knife” “Maybe don’t hold it by the blade” It’s something along the lines of sarcastic and deliberately unhelpful because “duh, of course don’t do that”.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        This doesn’t seem related to my comment. Did you mean to reply to me upthread? Saying ~“maybe it’s not ok to do <thing> but <reasons they might do thing>” is nothing like your example and does imply it’s acceptable to the speaker to sometimes do that thing. But we’re past that now because the person I was discussing this with has gone ahead and clarified that telling an open source maintainer to please stop fucking up isn’t an angry comment.
- lukaslalinsky 5mo ago
  The thing is, showing the annoyance to the volunteer, who is already doing their best, has two possible outcomes: 1) they stop volunteering 2) they will ignore you In neither of that is your issue solved. So maybe it's better to deal with the frustration on your own and then file a bug report.
  - dragontamer 5mo ago
    There must be some degree of communication from customers to developers. Even if it is a free volunteer service. Poor communication results in professionals firing the customer as well. None of this is exclusive to OSS of volunteer effort. But the communication in general is necessary. This is just product management and communication issues. There is an perceived problem and the problem MUST be communicated. Problems aren't solved by shutting up and ignoring things. And based on the discussion in this topic, it's clear there's a lot of people who are worried about rsync code quality here.
    - akerl_ 5mo ago
      These are not customers.
      - 306bobby 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        That’s exactly what I was calling out. Customers pay money for goods and services. They thus get a bunch of social, ethical, and legal positions in terms of their relationship with the seller. Rsync is an open source project that its maintainers put onto the Internet. People who use it are not customers, and they do not have the right to expectations around how the maintainers will change the software or change how they develop it.
        5mo ago
otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
> because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write That's not why the comments are angry. The anger is directed at the slop approach to code review. I guarantee you the same anti-AI people wouldn't give a shit if the author used an AI-enabled IDE and personally vetted all commits.

Spamming an open source developer with angry comments because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write and publish freely is not normal.

by akerl_ 5mo ago

Spamming an open source developer with angry comments because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write and publish freely is not normal.

dragontamer 5mo ago

This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups. I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.

akerl_ 5mo ago
> Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer Why are you hedging this? Do you think maybe it is socially acceptable?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- dragontamer 5mo ago
  This isn't a hedge at all. There is likely an English mistake/misinterpretstion being made here. I am a native English speaker btw.
  - akerl_ 5mo ago
    Do you believe the comments in this GitHub issue are acceptable social discourse towards an open source maintainer?
    - dragontamer 5mo ago
      The first comment, which is a screenshot from Mastodon, is perfectly acceptable. There is a clear regression between newer versions of rsync. Then egos got bruised and things leave the realm of reason soon after. But coming with a request saying "Version X worked while version Y doesn't", with maybe some degree of annoyance, is fine.
      - akerl_ 5mo ago
        The title of the original issue, by the original issue submitter, is “Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software”.
        dragontamer 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        The target of the issue title is pretty clearly the maintainer. They’re the one being told to stop using AI. I guess this answers the question of whether you think maybe it’s ok to spit in the face of open source developers.
        jodrellblank 5mo ago
        “Maybe don’t do that?” does not mean “I support you doing that” no matter how unfamiliar you are with it as an idiom. “I cut my finger with the kitchen knife” “Maybe don’t hold it by the blade” It’s something along the lines of sarcastic and deliberately unhelpful because “duh, of course don’t do that”.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
        akerl_ 5mo ago
        This doesn’t seem related to my comment. Did you mean to reply to me upthread? Saying ~“maybe it’s not ok to do <thing> but <reasons they might do thing>” is nothing like your example and does imply it’s acceptable to the speaker to sometimes do that thing. But we’re past that now because the person I was discussing this with has gone ahead and clarified that telling an open source maintainer to please stop fucking up isn’t an angry comment.
lukaslalinsky 5mo ago
The thing is, showing the annoyance to the volunteer, who is already doing their best, has two possible outcomes: 1) they stop volunteering 2) they will ignore you In neither of that is your issue solved. So maybe it's better to deal with the frustration on your own and then file a bug report.
- dragontamer 5mo ago
  There must be some degree of communication from customers to developers. Even if it is a free volunteer service. Poor communication results in professionals firing the customer as well. None of this is exclusive to OSS of volunteer effort. But the communication in general is necessary. This is just product management and communication issues. There is an perceived problem and the problem MUST be communicated. Problems aren't solved by shutting up and ignoring things. And based on the discussion in this topic, it's clear there's a lot of people who are worried about rsync code quality here.
  - akerl_ 5mo ago
    These are not customers.
    - 306bobby 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - akerl_ 5mo ago
        That’s exactly what I was calling out. Customers pay money for goods and services. They thus get a bunch of social, ethical, and legal positions in terms of their relationship with the seller. Rsync is an open source project that its maintainers put onto the Internet. People who use it are not customers, and they do not have the right to expectations around how the maintainers will change the software or change how they develop it.
        5mo ago

otabdeveloper4 5mo ago

> because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write That's not why the comments are angry. The anger is directed at the slop approach to code review. I guarantee you the same anti-AI people wouldn't give a shit if the author used an AI-enabled IDE and personally vetted all commits.