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

Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

ziglang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 952 posts

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#341

Post by ChrisGreenHeur »

harry8 wrote: post #330
ericpruitt wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusingly, this post violates Zig's own code of conduct: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct > Examples of behavior that contribute to creating a positive environment include: > - Using welcoming and inclusive language. > - Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences. > - Showing empathy towards others. > - Showing appreciation for others’ work.

There is a difference between what you say to and about volunteers working for free on their hobby and what you say about the work of a company famously known as "The Death Star" You want to work with people and the group says "yay and this is how we will work together" you do that or go away. This is entirely separate to stating a universal truth such as "Microsoft product blows because they do not care", "Oracle su…

Microsoft is actually just a group of people as well.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#342

Post by throwawaymaths »

petersellers wrote: post #294
throwaway150 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely you have your own line on what is or is not acceptable discourse. What is it? I do but I decline to share it here. I'm not going to shift this thread from what the author is doing on their website to my personal beliefs and boundaries! All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. Where…

> All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. That's funny, because if that is true he violated his own code of conduct: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/#safe-constructive-only > I do but I decline to share it here The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be…

read the CoC carefully, it says which spaces are governed by it. the website does not seem to be. that's deliberate, the CoC only applies to "working" spaces.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#343

Post by throwawaymaths »

paulddraper wrote: post #327
ssivark wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you perhaps have preferred if they referred to it as "unprofessional" or "sloppy" instead alluding of monkeys? To me all those mean the same thing, except the latter is more flavorful and makes my eyes less likely to glaze over. > Imagine how you would feel if you were the person who wrote this code, and now you are being called a monkey in front of thousands of people on the internet. Er.. so? Why should anyon…

Do you believe that Zig is following its own code of conduct, or not?

The website is not covered by the CoC, so they are not in abeyance

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#344

Post by bsder »

shridharxp wrote: post #185
johnfn wrote: post #95

> it’s abundantly clear that the talented folks who used to work on the product have moved on to bigger and better things, with the remaining losers eager to inflict some kind of bloated, buggy JavaScript framework on us in the name of progress. > More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys This writing really does not reflect well on Zig. If you have technical issues with Github, fine: cite them. But leave ad ho…

It's okay to bring some "natural" language in technical communication. It feels more humane. All the whitewashed corporate language, riddled marketing bullshit feels so soul dead.

And if he cleaned it up, an even larger number of people would be calling it written with AI.

Shrug.

If he were berating a specific person, I might flag it. Berating Github and Microsoft as an organization? Nah.

Given that CEOs seem to now live in a Post Shame Reality(tm), I'll allow bringing some shame to the situation.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#345

Post by blackcatsec »

I'm not reading this whole thread, but based on the title I figured it kind of boiled down to name calling bullshit by more open source maintainers.

Folks, we have to stop this bullshit. NOBODY is perfect. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. It IS entirely possible that some script thing was written by an intern and it doesn't quite work right. That's possible. Does that make them a shitty intern?

As I've told others, and try to tell others, empathy is super important in the tech field. As a fellow autistic person who used to be this way towards other people, I find it equally as jarring now and completely turns me off to listening to whatever that person has to say when they make posts like this.

Give people some grace, make fixes, move on with your life. That's the beauty of OSS development. Submit some patches, reach out to maintainers, open a dialog, have good conversation. Don't just shit all over someone for the sake of doing so even if they are doing something "stupid".

I promise you we will ALL be better for it.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#346

Post by throwaway150 »

yunohn wrote: post #333
throwaway150 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely you have your own line on what is or is not acceptable discourse. What is it? I do but I decline to share it here. I'm not going to shift this thread from what the author is doing on their website to my personal beliefs and boundaries! All I am saying is it is their project, their blog. They can be however much rude they want to be on their website. It's their website, their lines and their boundaries. Where…

If that is how you feel, why are you spending multiple comments defending the language used? It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand.

> If that is how you feel, why are you spending multiple comments defending the language used?

I don't care much about the language used. I neither intend to defend it nor criticize it. But I do care about people trying to be morality police. That's why I am spending multiple comments here.

> It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand.

Yes, the reason is that my line applies to myself. My line doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to Andrew. So my line, which is a personal and private matter for me, isn't something I want to share here. It is irrelevant when talking about the words Andrew chose on his website. That's the reason. It's a simple reason. Don't overthink it!

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#347

Post by Quothling »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #126

Very questionable decision. You're running what aims to be a major programming language - have it where people expect and live with your gripes about the platform. In retail you set up your store in the biggest mall with the most customers walking past - sure you can go set up in some back alley but don't expect customers to come to your store. This remains true even if the mall owns forget to mop the floor. This fee…

Who are people? People in USA? Where I live it's frankly a positive if you're on a different base than github. SQLite seems to manage fine without github, so I'm not sure why you think Zig isn't going to be. That being said I don't necessarily disagree with your position on maturity, SQLite has an official github mirror after all. Even if you don't want to bother with that there are a lot of ways to write about it without calling people monkeys.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#348

Post by aeonfox »

vdupras wrote: post #58
aeonfox wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could also just be people with bills to pay who are maybe faced with—by some accounts—a very challenging employment market. Or maybe due to disabilities they find the process of finding new work difficult or impossible.

Except for the "disabilities" part, which is problematic to classify, wouldn't your description broadly fit the word "losers"? EDIT: I don't understand the downvotes. It's not a value judgement on Github employees, it's about the meaning of the word "loser". Go back to your teenage years. What's a loser? Someone, often through no fault of their own, keep being in a bad situation, having the "short end of the stick".…

> Isn't that an accurate definition of what "loser" generally means?

"Loser" is a catch-all taunt that bypasses empathy. But certainly they might be 'in a losing situation', which is an important distinction.

> Except for the "disabilities" part, which is problematic to classify

Disability in this context is something intrinsic to the person (e.g., physically, mentally) that makes the employment process substantially difficult to engage with.

In addition to disability, difficulty can also arise do to any prejudice that might be levelled against them (e.g., ageism, sexism, junior vs senior, skin color, language skills, country of origin), as well as visa consideration, financial situation, etc. There's so many things that affect the risk calculus of changing jobs.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#349

Post by brendoelfrendo »

mmaunder wrote: post #179
johnfn wrote: post #95

> it’s abundantly clear that the talented folks who used to work on the product have moved on to bigger and better things, with the remaining losers eager to inflict some kind of bloated, buggy JavaScript framework on us in the name of progress. > More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys This writing really does not reflect well on Zig. If you have technical issues with Github, fine: cite them. But leave ad ho…

Agreed. Came here to point out that the lack of professionalism and common courtesy here is reminiscent of the dark entitled days of open source in the late 90s that had attitude of "We build free software so we can tell you to go fuck yourself.". Hope we're not headed back there.

As opposed to the modern era of megacorps benefitting from the free labor of OS maintainers? I will not deny that corporate contributions to open source projects are significant, but there are definitely some very visible examples of projects being taken advantage of by companies that want to use free software without giving back.

Re: Migrating the main Zig repository from GitHub to Codeberg

#350

Post by throwaway150 »

petersellers wrote: post #332
throwaway150 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's funny, because if that is true he violated his own code of conduct Yes, he did. It is funny. I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it. If you are bothered so much by this violation, file an official report on their issue tracker. > The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist When I said I dec…

> Yes, he did. It is funny. Yeah, it’s hilarious! Calling someone a monkey is such a clever and thought provoking insult! > I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond? > When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist. I re…

> If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?

I'm not confused by anything. That was a rhetorical question. I continue to respond because there are other things that I care about and I have things to say about that. I don't care about what style or tone or words Andrew choses on their website. But I care about people trying to be morality police and discouraging someone blogging on their own website from writing rudely and writing politically incorrectly. So that's why I continue to respond.

> Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

Credit where credit is due. If you make good points I agree with, I'll certainly say that.

> Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

Because there are other points of yours I don't agree with.

Must a person always 100% agree or 100% disagree? Can a person not 10% agree and 90% disagree? The latter is happening here.

Post reply on HN