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

Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

sourcehut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 365 posts

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#31

Post by Semaphor »

Thaxll wrote: post #14
xenophonf wrote: post #11

This: > I was banned from the Go issue tracker without explanation, and was unable to continue discussing the problem with Google. is completely asinine. But it's also par for the course when it comes to interacting with Google. When is anyone going to hold them to account for their terrible customer service and community interaction?

It's one side of the story. I don't think he was banned for no reasons.

The other side: https://github.com/golang/go/issues?q=is%3Aissue+sort%3Aupda...

Spoiler: Nothing.

edit: Possibly not as much nothing, see the replies to [0]. But the GH search kinda sucks for this.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34311799

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#32

Post by numbsafari »

ddevault wrote: post #24
Thaxll wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one side of the story. I don't think he was banned for no reasons.

I would share their side as well, but I never heard it. This is a violation of their own code of conduct, which requires them to notify the affected person, explain why, and offer the opportunity to mediate the situation. This is not the first time I was banned from the Go community without notice or explanation, and the first time turned out to be frivolous -- the ban was overturned months later with an admission th…

Do you have a legal claim against Google for abusing your systems?

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#33

Post by _wolfie_ »

xena wrote: post #9
lwagreputation wrote: post #2

Mhmmm. Yeah I wish the default were to not use a proxy. Though to be fair I'm not sure exactly what the performance implications would be.

From what I understand, the proxy also helps people make sure that an upstream deleting their GitHub repos doesn't result in builds breaking on new machines that don't have it cached locally. Imagine the problems that could happen if someone new joins your team, runs `go build` and then one of the vital dependencies 404s. The other problem is that it's Google so their perception of "not much traffic" is "biblical flo…

But that is what should happen. The build should break. So that someone can fix it.

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#34

Post by FiloSottile »

comex wrote: post #27

According to some comments in the linked GitHub issue, including [1] from last May, Drew could have simply asked to be excluded from automatic refresh traffic from the mirror. If I understand correctly, that would still leave traffic from the mirror when it’s acting as a direct proxy for someone’s request, but that is traffic that would be going to sr.ht regardless. For some reason he did not do this and instead chos…

I can confirm asking to be excluded from refreshes (which AFAIK is still a standing offer, but I obviously can't speak for the mirror team because I am not at Google anymore) would stop all automated traffic from the mirror, and that sr.ht could send a simple HTTP GET to proxy.golang.org for new tags if it wished not to wait for users to request new versions.

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#35

Post by brnt »

leetrout wrote: post #8

I feel like Drew has been in a pissing match with the Go team for a while so this outcome doesnt surprise me. I love Go but not Google's stewardship of it. The tracking proxy, Russ' takeover / squash of the package management work, the weird silence / stonewalling on other community issues... Drew has a valid complaint. I hate to hear he was banned from the issue tracker but that sounds about right. As a sibling said…

Seems like they could also let one request per hour through, say, and then serve up the rest a 429.

Users trying to clone their project would hit an almost certainly up to date Google cache and thus be happy and sr.ht save on pretty much all that traffic and thus be also happy.

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#36

Post by cp9 »

_wolfie_ wrote: post #33
xena wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, the proxy also helps people make sure that an upstream deleting their GitHub repos doesn't result in builds breaking on new machines that don't have it cached locally. Imagine the problems that could happen if someone new joins your team, runs `go build` and then one of the vital dependencies 404s. The other problem is that it's Google so their perception of "not much traffic" is "biblical flo…

But that is what should happen. The build should break. So that someone can fix it.

the blast radius of that outcome is another leftpad incident. the go team decided that they don't want that to happen

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#39

Post by alphazard »

pjmlp wrote: post #23
no_wizard wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the deal on package mangement? They did quite a few iterations here so I don’t follow. Don’t know about the Russ takeover either

TL;DR version. Go package management was quite poor for many real use cases outside Google, so the community railed around many competing proposals, and when it appeared there was a clear winner, the Go team came out with their own solution instead. This after kind of supporting the ongoing community efforts.

This is actually one of the reasons I trust the Go project is in good hands. The Go leadership has smart engineers, with good taste, willing to say no. The Go module implementation and version selection mechanism are better than what the community had converged on.

Go has demonstrated that its governance model is capable of making better decisions than a pure democracy. This is not the case for most open source projects.

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#40

Post by Fnoord »

ddevault wrote: post #24
Thaxll wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one side of the story. I don't think he was banned for no reasons.

I would share their side as well, but I never heard it. This is a violation of their own code of conduct, which requires them to notify the affected person, explain why, and offer the opportunity to mediate the situation. This is not the first time I was banned from the Go community without notice or explanation, and the first time turned out to be frivolous -- the ban was overturned months later with an admission th…

DoSing SourceHut? And the perpetrator is known? Why don't you try to sue them?
Post reply on HN