4 ms·

A pull request where two guys acted like jackasses towards each other, and where we instinctively try to pick sides based on our past experiences and beliefs.

A pull request where two guys acted like jackasses towards each other, and where we instinctively try to pick sides based on our past experiences and beliefs. I think really thinking on why I'm siding with one person almost immediately despite not having much context in this is really revealing and maybe not a little unpleasant.

yownie 12y ago
so much this ++
nailer 12y ago
Actually while I posted earlier about the 'show me the codes' people, this guy isn't really one of them and I might have felt bad for implying it was. It might be reasonable for an emoji library to say 'ALPHA: missing a few characters' to stop people from trying to debug non-existent rendering problems - but he puts this in a very aggressive manner. As you said, they're both wrong (and right) in their own ways.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- michaelhoffman 12y ago
  Almost all countries are signatories of the Berne Convention, meaning that works are under copyright protection automatically, without requiring copyright notices. Similarly, no license mentioned means that you only have the rights given to you by law (such as fair use or fair dealing).
sylvinus 12y ago
One of the guys wrote something and published it as open source. The other got to use it for free but still complains with an inappropriate tone. Hard not to side with the first one by default.
- 54mf 12y ago
  Offering incomplete software as open source doesn't make it any less incomplete. Are we giving out blue ribbons for participation now?
  - tux1968 12y ago
    So the alternative in your view is to not offer anything at all unless it's complete by some objective standard? Does that really sound preferable to you?
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      An alternative is to offer it, but mark it clearly as "incomplete" or "alpha" (which is what one of the original complaints was about). Versioning it would be even better (say, call this "emoji 0.1").
  - grey-area 12y ago
    No-one asked for blue ribbons or sympathy. If someone whines about a perceived shortcoming in stuff which has been released incomplete, but free and modifiable, then they can expect short shrift.
    - MCRed 12y ago
      They should expect that, but instead they are getting sympathy in this thread, quite ironically: https://harthur.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/771/ https://harthur.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/771/
  - aaronem 12y ago
    It is perfectly complete and exactly what it claims to be. It's just not what whatsisname expected it to be. Are we expecting OSS developers to be mind readers now?
  - lazerwalker 12y ago
    In this specific instance, calling the library "incomplete" is a less-than-completely-accurate characterization. What the issue creator wants is easily possible using the library, but cannot be included as default behavior because of licensing issues. This is hinted at, but perhaps not made as explicit as it could be, in the README.
sold 12y ago
Note it's not a pull request; it's an issue in the tracker. Had it been a prepared patch, I would have more sympathy towards the reporter.
mercurial 12y ago
> A pull request where two guys acted like jackasses towards each other, and where we instinctively try to pick sides based on our past experiences and beliefs. A Github issue where a user behaves rudely and labours under the misapprehension that he is owed anything by the person who made his work available for free. All that because of a limitation of the underlying library he would likely have found out about if he had bothered doing his homework. It's not very difficult to pick sides here.

yownie 12y ago

so much this ++

nailer 12y ago

Actually while I posted earlier about the 'show me the codes' people, this guy isn't really one of them and I might have felt bad for implying it was. It might be reasonable for an emoji library to say 'ALPHA: missing a few characters' to stop people from trying to debug non-existent rendering problems - but he puts this in a very aggressive manner. As you said, they're both wrong (and right) in their own ways.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

michaelhoffman 12y ago
Almost all countries are signatories of the Berne Convention, meaning that works are under copyright protection automatically, without requiring copyright notices. Similarly, no license mentioned means that you only have the rights given to you by law (such as fair use or fair dealing).

sylvinus 12y ago

One of the guys wrote something and published it as open source. The other got to use it for free but still complains with an inappropriate tone. Hard not to side with the first one by default.

54mf 12y ago
Offering incomplete software as open source doesn't make it any less incomplete. Are we giving out blue ribbons for participation now?
- tux1968 12y ago
  So the alternative in your view is to not offer anything at all unless it's complete by some objective standard? Does that really sound preferable to you?
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    An alternative is to offer it, but mark it clearly as "incomplete" or "alpha" (which is what one of the original complaints was about). Versioning it would be even better (say, call this "emoji 0.1").
- grey-area 12y ago
  No-one asked for blue ribbons or sympathy. If someone whines about a perceived shortcoming in stuff which has been released incomplete, but free and modifiable, then they can expect short shrift.
  - MCRed 12y ago
    They should expect that, but instead they are getting sympathy in this thread, quite ironically: https://harthur.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/771/ https://harthur.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/771/
- aaronem 12y ago
  It is perfectly complete and exactly what it claims to be. It's just not what whatsisname expected it to be. Are we expecting OSS developers to be mind readers now?
- lazerwalker 12y ago
  In this specific instance, calling the library "incomplete" is a less-than-completely-accurate characterization. What the issue creator wants is easily possible using the library, but cannot be included as default behavior because of licensing issues. This is hinted at, but perhaps not made as explicit as it could be, in the README.

sold 12y ago

Note it's not a pull request; it's an issue in the tracker. Had it been a prepared patch, I would have more sympathy towards the reporter.

mercurial 12y ago

> A pull request where two guys acted like jackasses towards each other, and where we instinctively try to pick sides based on our past experiences and beliefs. A Github issue where a user behaves rudely and labours under the misapprehension that he is owed anything by the person who made his work available for free. All that because of a limitation of the underlying library he would likely have found out about if he had bothered doing his homework. It's not very difficult to pick sides here.