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

391–400 of 408 posts

Re: Actix project postmortem

#391

Post by qwerty456127 »

j1elo wrote: post #151
qwerty456127 wrote: post #17

People should really learn to ignore the emotional channel of the comments they receive. Just try to figure out if the message contains any useful information with a quick glance, extract it if it does and ignore the rest. People have to shit - that's physiologically inevitable, and there are people who do it in the streets and there are people who shit in comments/messages. Why take them serious?

I agree with you. Really it is something that probably can be learned over time. I think it helps a lot to just remember how much money this or that dumb hater have paid for their entitlements (i.e. nothing), which -at leas in my eyes- emotionally reduces their words to a child's tantrum.

Sure, but it helps more to realize once and forever: all the shit anybody says is just a "child's tantrum". Real grown-ups don't behave this way, too many people just don't grow up as they age.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#392

Post by torstenvl »

rat9988 wrote: post #307
torstenvl wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's exactly it. He did not answer in good faith. He answered with a false dichotomy that everyone knows is false.

Not sure why you're upset at me for calling it out.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#393

Post by dang »

kjs3 wrote: post #325
teddyh wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open source authors promised us nothing and owe us nothing There is such a thing as an implicit promise. A project which presents itself as active and maintained by a community does implicitly promise a certain level of attention by its maintainers.

There is such a thing as an implicit promise, but it does not trump an an explicit disclaimer of such attention. Which there is in this case. Once again, thanks for demonstrating the entitled attitude that brought this on.

Would you please edit out personal swipes and/or snark and/or name-calling from your posts to HN? Between this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22080698, you'd done this more than once in the thread. We're trying for curious conversation here, not flamewar rhetoric.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, we'd be grateful. I appreciate how much your HN posts have improved, but it's necessary not to break the guidelines.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#394

Post by kazinator »

geofft wrote: post #343
kazinator wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is relying on your code, that means they have their own copy of it. You're not obligated to keep your copy online.

As an open-source developer myself, I'm annoyed when people do that. I want them to rely on my product , not my code. I want them to update when I publish new versions and I want them to send patches back. There are even almost-open-source licenses that compel you to send patches back. I don't want to use one. I want to treat them with respect and I hope they treat me with respect in turn.

I don't know what planet you live on, but people need a local mirror of your stuff for reasons such as, oh, so that their continuous integration builds don't stop when your server is not reachable.

Most users are not going to use your today's daily build, nor should they. Only people who are more than casually involved with your project can be expected to contribute changes which are rebased to the current.

If things are working for some users, and there is no security advisory that affects them, they have no reason to update to every new version.

Anyway, between you and the users, there may be middlemen: the distro package maintainers. Those people will lag in picking up your changes, and may push back on bad ones that break things for them.

People should mostly get stable things from their distros, not straight from the horse's mouth.

For instance, if I'm building something on Ubuntu 18, I will use the make, bison, shell and whatever else that is packaged on Ubuntu 18; I'm not going to pull these things from the tips of their repos and rebuild their latest versions.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#395

Post by bryanrasmussen »

rumanator wrote: post #284
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. that's ok though because the house has lots of other doors that are based on the door he was holding open, all people have to do is to go through the effort to find the best version of the door that is most like the door he was holding open before that he's bricked up and thus is not available for comparison anymore. I certainly thi…

> he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. If you're interested in the project you can still access the source code. Hell, the author asked for volunteers to pick up where he left off. Yet, you're only complaining that he is no longer working for you and complying with your personal whims. That's the problem. A guy volunteers himself and donates his expertise and work to g…

well, I already apologized elsewhere as I had misunderstood his personal repo to mean a private repo, but anyway I don't code in Rust, so no, I'm obviously not complaining that he is no longer working for me.

This obviously means also that he has not given me a gift.

Finally I am not sure what reasoning has led you to assume that if he gave me a gift moochers would want to mooch off of him, and how they would do so by virtue of him giving me a gift. Whatever reasoning it was, I'm forced to think there must have been little of it.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#396

Post by j1elo »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #391
j1elo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Really it is something that probably can be learned over time. I think it helps a lot to just remember how much money this or that dumb hater have paid for their entitlements (i.e. nothing), which -at leas in my eyes- emotionally reduces their words to a child's tantrum.

Sure, but it helps more to realize once and forever: all the shit anybody says is just a "child's tantrum". Real grown-ups don't behave this way, too many people just don't grow up as they age.

On the other hand, we should also understand that a constant stream of insults, contempt, and general negativity around every step one takes, can and will bring anyone down, and even induce depression

Re: Actix project postmortem

#397

Post by useragent86 »

rumanator wrote: post #389
nindalf wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're referring to the maintainer's conscious decision to reject a patch made in good faith, that fixed the issues that had been pointed out. It was rejected with the statement "this is boring." Do you think this behaviour is justifiable? > I think you are confused You sure?

> They're referring to the maintainer's conscious decision to reject a patch made in good faith, that fixed the issues that had been pointed out. You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue, only a bunch of opinionated and vocal users who thought that bullying a maintainer is an acceptable way to get him to accept their patches. The maintainer rejected the bullies' actions and in turn the bu…

> You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue

The story originated from the author of this article [0] posting a bug report issue [1].

Why are you accusing others of misrepresenting the problem while doing so yourself?

0: https://medium.com/@shnatsel/smoke-testing-rust-http-clients...

1: https://archive.is/BEqfM

Re: Actix project postmortem

#398

Post by rumanator »

useragent86 wrote: post #397
rumanator wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're referring to the maintainer's conscious decision to reject a patch made in good faith, that fixed the issues that had been pointed out. You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue, only a bunch of opinionated and vocal users who thought that bullying a maintainer is an acceptable way to get him to accept their patches. The maintainer rejected the bullies' actions and in turn the bu…

> You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue The story originated from the author of this article [0] posting a bug report issue [1]. Why are you accusing others of misrepresenting the problem while doing so yourself? 0: https://medium.com/@shnatsel/smoke-testing-rust-http-clients... 1: https://archive.is/BEqfM

Please stick with the facts and thus with primary sources. Part of the blame of this shitstorm lies in those who insist in misrepresenting the problem with bullshit blog posts and "he said she said" nonsense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/epszt7/actixnet_unsou...

Unfortunately this is not the first time Rust soundness/unsafe zealots are aggressive and create shitstorms in the community.

Re: Actix project postmortem

#399

Post by [deleted] »

rumanator wrote: post #398
useragent86 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're misrepresenting the problem. There was never a bug or an issue The story originated from the author of this article [0] posting a bug report issue [1]. Why are you accusing others of misrepresenting the problem while doing so yourself? 0: https://medium.com/@shnatsel/smoke-testing-rust-http-clients... 1: https://archive.is/BEqfM

Please stick with the facts and thus with primary sources. Part of the blame of this shitstorm lies in those who insist in misrepresenting the problem with bullshit blog posts and "he said she said" nonsense. https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/epszt7/actixnet_unsou... Unfortunately this is not the first time Rust soundness/unsafe zealots are aggressive and create shitstorms in the community.

[deleted]

Re: Actix project postmortem

#400

Post by srg0 »

hocuspocus wrote: post #107
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're right, it was unprofessional... but since the maintainer is not being paid this is not a professional project. It's a personal project. And this seems like a perfectly personal thing to do with something that's preventing happiness.

> It's a personal project. If you create an organization on GitHub for a project that is meant to remain personal, this kinda sends a wrong signal. Blaming some users for being rude and entitled, and then deleting an open source repo out of spite... it's a bit hard to feel sympathy for the guy here.

> If you create an organization on GitHub for a project that is meant to remain personal,

Sounds like there were intentions or plans to transform a one man project into something bigger. Some steps were made. Hence, a nice looking website, a github org, benchmarks etc. All those signals are intentions, the vision of the future self. They may or may not come true.

Nothing signaled an established business model or sustainable backing of any kind.

Post reply on HN