I preferred open source before people like this got involved with all their bullshit and doublespeak.
I'm sorry
221–230 of 277 posts
Re: I'm sorry
#222holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…
> people need to take everything much less seriously
I am starting to think there is a part of (some?) people's brains that needs to take something seriously. When all basic needs are met: food, warmth, security etc., problems are invented to give that part of the brain something to do.
Re: I'm sorry
#223Very toxic behaviour from this person.
Re: I'm sorry
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is not desired behavior it should be enforced by requiring a reviewer to sign off on the changes before merging. By not requiring this it means it is okay for pull requests to be merged without discussion, even if it is a rare occurrence. This is one of those occurrences.
So, first of all I disagree. Just because something is not prevented by technical means doesn't make it allowed. That goes for all things in life, outside of a supermax prison. And after being asked twice by another maintainer (one of the two current maintainers (none of which are her), as I read it) to please follow the procedures, she tells him to fuck off and overrides him. And after all that she does actually wri…
..and further it is not possible to discern properly the relationship between a project and a contributor just because there is a time gap. If I wrote a project completely myself up to version 1.1 and then allowed other maintainers on to it who had taken it to version 1.2 I might feel I can merge whatever I like even after a gap. Not saying that is what happened here, just saying that it is impossible to discern from that discussion
Re: I'm sorry
#225Years ago I heard Microsoft was open sourcing .Net. and I thought that was a clever idea. But with all the drama coming out of the community now for years and years I seriously question the intentions behind that move. It seems to me Microsoft just wanted a bunch of free coders on their .Net projects. And it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft set out to destroy a community of volunteers either.
I assume they want to retain "ownership" so they can execute the extend and extinguish steps unopposed
Re: I'm sorry
#226I am not versed in all the details here, but it is clear there is a diverge of expectations between MS and some of the repo owners. This is just part of business. Legal agreements and projects are complicated. Not everything is going to be spelled out. In a good business relationship you acknowledge this and work in good faith to resolve differences when they occur. However, top comments make clear there is a dire ne…
I don't see anything wrong with that quote. Can it be expressed more "softly"? Sure. But that person is expressing his opinion and I don't see any problem with that. You could also argue it lays the foundation for further escalation but that's on whoever chooses to engage in it IMO. There seems to be a more general trend going on, some think themselves or others must be protected from "harshness" (even though I consi…
> his arguments are typically sound
Telling someone to kill themselves is not a sound argument under any circumstances.
Re: I'm sorry
#227"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened ( https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 ), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology at…
„Apologizing when you are caught to is never an apology, but an indication of submission.“
NNT - https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1427341684447264772
Re: I'm sorry
#228I did not really dive into the details of the legalese that was shared in the comments, but on the surface none of what the .NET Foundation doing seems that odd. How is it any different really from how Apache or Eclipse or many other foundations operate? I think it is less about the Foundation trying to seize the projects from the founders then it is the Foundation doing what it needs to do to apply its legal value t…
Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects: Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux f…
Hell Linux foundation does not even own the Trademark to Linux. Linus hold that personally
Re: I'm sorry
#229I don’t know enough about this to comment, except to say, gee, isn’t the social and business life of human adults complicated? Yes it is. It is complicated. How strange, then, that so many people seem to jump with both feet into complicated shared ownership arrangements with near strangers— leading to the absurdity of public messages flying around instead keeping these communications private to the specific people wh…
Because the Dot Net Foundation shut down all internal means of communication and directed people to the public forum.
Re: I'm sorry
#230"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened ( https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 ), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology at…
If this is not desired behavior it should be enforced by requiring a reviewer to sign off on the changes before merging. By not requiring this it means it is okay for pull requests to be merged without discussion, even if it is a rare occurrence. This is one of those occurrences.
> If this is not desired behavior it should be enforced by requiring a reviewer to sign off on the changes before merging.
From what I've read about this specific incident, it seems this was enabled by the fact that this project had been moved to GitHub Enterprise without the maintainers' knowledge. One of the features of GitHub Enterprise is that some privileged users in the organization can bypass such restrictions. That may be what happened here.