Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Actix project postmortem

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 408 posts

Re: Actix project postmortem

#301

Post by jmull »

teddyh wrote: post #23
tsukurimashou wrote: post #11

"Ok... So that was unprofessional. If you don't want to maintain a project anymore, you give it to someone else and link to that repo in your README. This just screwed me over big time." https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/1#issuecomment-575... These kind of entitled attitude is probably exactly why the guy just removed everything. More details / discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/epszt7/ac…

> These kind of entitled attitude If you offer code to the public – and present it as an active, dependable project – professional behavior is exactly what you implicitly promise and signed up for . If you can’t offer that (at any time, and for any reason), then you should immediately make that clear, front-and-center, to any current and future users. It isn’t “entitlement” on part of the users – the users are making…

> you implicitly promise and signed up for

Think about this. Do you really think it makes any sense to try to hold people to promises inferred by alternate parties that aren’t even providing any consideration in return?

Just think about that.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#302

Post by kissgyorgy »

kmike84 wrote: post #51
fraktl wrote: post #13

Open source maintainers have a hard time - especially when they're under criticism and receive zero positive vibes. Author mentions it, here's the excerpt: Be a maintainer of large open source project is not a fun task. You alway face with rude and hate, everyone knows better how to build software, nobody wants to do home work and read docs and think a bit and very few provide any help. This a big problem with open s…

A data point: I've been involved in Open Source for 10+ years, developing projects myself, helping to maintain very popular projects, contributing, and I don't see a trend like this. I've interacted with hundreds of people over the years, and the vibes are overwhelmingly positive; I haven't noticed any hatred or rudeness towards myself. I can't think of a single time interaction with OSS people afected me negatively,…

The Python community has probably the nicest people of all languages!

Re: Actix project postmortem

#303

Post by rossjudson »

saagarjha wrote: post #131
mabbo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I see you approaching a door, I am under no obligation to open it just because I'm physically able to, but if I open a door for you, I'd better hold it until you're finished walking through, or I'm a jerk. By holding the door open, I've made an implicit promise that I'm not going to close it on you. This reminds me of an incident years ago. I was on a city bus, very full of people, and we were just about to leav…

In this case, the maintainer made an active and conscious decision to do something that did nothing but hurt everyone using the project. There are no passengers who might benefit here, sadly.

I think you are confused. The maintainer made an active and conscious decision to protect himself. That's clearly not "nothing", and a perfectly legitimate reason.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#304

Post by tumdum_ »

cesarb wrote: post #154
pjmlp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what happens when one outsources everything to Github.

This would have happened identically even if the project had its own hosting, so outsourcing hosting to GitHub isn't a factor in this case.

I wouldn't happen if instead of git, they used fossil.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#305

Post by Matthias247 »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #196
Dowwie wrote: post #171

I've been using actix-web for my work for some time, contributing however I can while learning Rust and myriad other subjects. This was the third major public event involving controversial design and implementation decisions. A great number of people in the Rust community have refused to accept that not everyone subscribes to their ideology about use of unsafe. They've repeatedly tried to impose their values and prio…

I wonder to what degree the entire incident happened because Rust has unsafe-blocks.

There are only 2 outcomes for Rust not having unsafe blocks:

1. Everything would be unsafe. Same as C/ C++

2. You could not use it to write real software, because not all constructs are expressible in safe code. The std lib requires unsafe to a bigger extend. Talking to the OS does the same.

Unsafe blocks are required to write software. And they are good, because they minimize the amount of code which can not be automatically audited by the compiler.

Unfortunately unsafe blocks seem to get more and more misused as a metric around the quality of software. Which is certainly not their intention.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#306

Post by tyre »

spapas82 wrote: post #286
magicalhippo wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially weird seeing as Github has made forking a very smooth way to work with a project. You fork it, make the changes you want, and then make the changes available upstream. If upstream vanishes, your fork is still around. If upstream doesn't want to merge, people can use your fork instead. And, if your changes are that much better, eventually make it the de-facto standard version of the project.

The commits you do in a fork are not visible in your GitHub commit calender until you do a PR and they are merged. For some people this is important so a "forked" project won't have many commits with merging back to master.

lol what?

They won't contribute or work on something unless it touches their commit calendar?

I'm kind of…

I guess that's not really a use case I'm concerned with, contribution-wise.

But who knows! Maybe most of open source work is done for personal vanity.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#307

Post by rat9988 »

torstenvl wrote: post #299
kelnos wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an entirely specious analogy. This code will not cause someone to get sick or die. And "contaminated" vs. "not contaminated" is a binary result for food -- one is the case and one is not the case. With code, there's nearly always room for reasonable disagreement as to what is the right/good or wrong/bad way to do things, and often people argue over two (or more) perfectly fine ways of doing things that just c…

Are you seriously claiming that food contamination is a "binary" thing? That it's impossible for food to be only a little contaminated, at a level that won't make you "get sick and die?" Its common knowledge that a certain amount of food contamination is considered safe. And, although specifics are not generally common knowledge, it's easy enough to find that, e.g., the FDA views I don't think hyperbole is helpful to…

>Are you seriously claiming that food contamination is a binary thing? That it's impossible for food to be only a little contaminated, at a level that won't make you "get sick and die?"

>I'm sorry, but I think you're being disingenuous. Every little kid knows there's some small amount of nasty stuff that's allowed in things like bread (grasshoppers in the wheat fields caught in the combines) and peanut butter because it's such a small amount of contamination and doesn't pose a health risk.

>Please don't be disingenuous in your arguments. It only serves to exacerbate the polarization over contentious issues.

At least he tried to answer in a good faith. Your answer is a lot worse.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#309

Post by StreamBright »

CDSlice wrote: post #186

For context, this comes after yet another unsoundness bug has been found in Actix-web. Normally people in the Rust community don't get very worked up over these because we know that everyone makes mistakes, but the Actix project has had a consistent history of introducing unsoundness through the use of unsafe for dubious reasons like nebulous performance increases or bypassing Rust's safety guarantees (which is what…

> but the Actix project has had a consistent history of introducing unsoundness through

Then you can stop using Actix and create a better project or fork it and fix these unsoundness bugs and call it ActixSound. I do not see the point to rally up the crowd and raid his Github in the name of soundness. This reflects poorly on the Rust community.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#310

Post by StreamBright »

howeyc wrote: post #226
CDSlice wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously being vocally abused is not OK no matter what the victim has done. This is a big problem and I think Steve's article that is currently on the top page of HN gives a good overview of that part of the situation. My problem with viewing all open source as a gift to the world, take it or leave it, is that when people create open source packages, market them as being ready for production use and as the best opti…

I strongly disagree, with extreme passion. They could have marketed it as the greatest gift to humanity for all I care. It's your responsibility to handle your use of code. Sure, you may find issue's in your dependencies, and you're welcome to submit a bug or provide a fix, but if you expect anything more than the code as it is, it's still your problem how to deal with it. The entitlement is astounding. A person prov…

And we yet to see any actual real-life problems with these "unsoundness" problems. Most of these issues raised in Actix were about theoretical problems.
Post reply on HN