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

231–240 of 365 posts

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#231

Post by Beltalowda »

naasking wrote: post #214
Beltalowda wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social science research has a dramatically poor replication rate, so on that basis alone I'm skeptical of the numbers even if he did interpret them correctly. It's not a perfect science, but that doesn't mean "do nothing" is the best option, or that we can't just use common sense for that matter. If someone joins a community space and their first interaction is being insulted then the chance that they will come bac…

Sure, I'm not suggesting "do nothing", I elaborate on what I'm suggesting in another reply below, re: backoff/retry strategies. I think online community management software needs features to better handle defectors and other non-constructive interactions, and not just focus on features that facilitate or ease communication. Sometimes you don't want to increase communication speed, sometimes you want back pressure to…

Yes, I agree. Everyone deserves another chance, several of them even.

I'm reasonably sure there had been at least Slack bans before though; this wasn't the first ban (I thought I mentioned this before, but looks like I forgot).

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#232

Post by Arnavion »

counttheforks wrote: post #192

I'll just rehost my git repos on a git host who doesn't mind actually doing their job as a git host by letting git clients clone git repos.

What does your ideal git host do when one of its (non-paying) clients uses bots to clones repos so hard that its (paying) human clients are unable to clone their repos?

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#233

Post by pjmlp »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #189
pjmlp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess following Turbo Pascal and Delphi tooling might feel novel to those that never used it.

The pedants among us might prefer: "novel among mainstream programming languages of the 21st century which predated Go".

Pity that even Limbo from 20th century was more feature rich than Go.

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#235

Post by Beltalowda »

counttheforks wrote: post #194
wwarner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to agree in as much banning people with legitimate issues is unhelpful. I was also taken aback when Peter Bourgon, a great programmer and contributor to the go ecosystem was banned from all go channels.

Why does the Go team ban so many people? Doesn't sound like a healthy community.

> Why does the Go team ban so many people?

As far as I know, they don't. AFAIK the two cases discussed here are the only two notable ones (that is, people who are not outright trolls and the like).

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#237

Post by Beltalowda »

Zamicol wrote: post #57
wwarner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to agree in as much banning people with legitimate issues is unhelpful. I was also taken aback when Peter Bourgon, a great programmer and contributor to the go ecosystem was banned from all go channels.

I've blocked many of the people that called for Peter's ban on Twitter. I don't want to be on their radar or a target of some sort of witch hunt. I consider myself a nice person and not inflammatory/offensive, but I'm a belt and suspenders type of person. It's more important that I can submit an issue on the tracker than interacting "socially" with people who have a higher chance of ostracizing targeted individuals.…

> I don't want to be on their radar or a target of some sort of witch hunt.

My first thought at the time was "oh gosh, it's not just me!" I think many people had a similar feeling. I don't think it's really a "witch hunt"; more a sigh of relief.

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#238

Post by kwhitefoot »

Fnoord wrote: post #40
ddevault wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you a lawyer offering your services pro bono?

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#239

Post by ddevault »

tptacek wrote: post #205
ddevault wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was indeed in the wrong when I made this comment four years ago. I have since apologized for it. I don't intend to re-litigate anything on HN at this point, but I have good reason to believe that this incident is unrelated to the reason I am presently banned. The linked comment was indeed out of line, and perhaps you feel justified in thinking that it should be sufficient grounds for a permanent expulsion from the…

Obviously, your expulsion from the Go issue tracker for abusive conduct is a separable issue from the Go module proxy, as you can see from Go project participants reiterating that the offer to exclude you from the refresh list still stands.

1. We would like to have a more complex discussion than saying "1" or "0" to this specific offer

2. This specific offer is not satisfactory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34313802

Re: Sourcehut will blacklist the Go module mirror

#240

Post by yamtaddle »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #236

> "it would be a fair bit of extra work for us to read robots.txt", Can someone explain what this means? After all reading a small text file is plainly easy to do so its meaning must be something other than obvious.

All I can figure is they're trying really, really hard to keep this very parallel on their side and also avoiding having to coordinate between nodes. It can't possibly be the reading of the robots.txt that's hard, so I think that statement has more to do with applying those policies to all the nodes—they must regard coordination between nodes to ensure the system as a whole isn't exceeding e.g. request rate maximums, to be "a fair bit of extra work".

Judging just from the linked post, the issue on which this was discussed, and this thread, it's feeling a lot like this proxy was some kind of proof-of-concept that escaped its cage and got elevated to production.

Post reply on HN