Nvm will **not** be adding support for Ayo.js | Hacker News Reader

Nvm will not be adding support for Ayo.js

github.com

63 pointsbretc13 comments

> I'm not going to add support for a fork lightly; I don't think this will stick; and I don't think a fork is an appropriate or well-timed response to what's been happening. Either way, I wouldn't add support for a fork that adds nothing but a partial documentation commit - that has value for nobody.

I appreciate this straightforward and honest response to this issue. The responder has looked at the benefits of the fork and decided that it doesn't make sense to add it.

Looking at the forked repo all they did was rename node to ayo and add a VALUES.md with very little substance. Looks like a power grab by a bunch of control freaks to me.

At least io.js had some technical merit and seemed to genuinely want to improve node (which arguably it did).

I haven't gone very deep with this issue, but I worked with Rod briefly at Nodesource, and hope more node-ecosystem projects respond like this. In the short time we worked together, I was completely impressed with him technically and socially. I was really surprised when I heard that anyone had an issue with him. I specifically remember the COC (which I guess this is about) was mandatory for all projects, and it's adherence was extremely important. I think he has very high standards of quality, but never personally saw any kind of hostile behavior (I'd say the opposite, as he was always really helpful.) He is an asset to any team, and I hope this blows over soon, so he can get back to doing what he's good at.

Can we just let Ayo.js die in the obscurity it has an deserves and not encourage this sort of politics?

On the subject of version managers for multiple programming languages, people might be interested in checking out asdf [0]. nvm was my favorite tool for handling multiple node versions, but I've found asdf suits my needs a bit better.

I'd still reach for nvm for deploying to a server. To the best of my knowledge, the code is portable across all UNIX-y OSs.

On the other hand, asdf supports multiple languages, so I was able to kill off rvm too! It also has considerably better performance (specifically, startup speed).

EDIT: As to the discussion regarding Ayo.js... I've never interacted with Rod personally, but having read a few hundred of his miscellaneous responses on GitHub, he has never struck me as someone unreasonable. His response to the criticisms being raised seem very reasonable as well. If anything, I now feel like I have a bit more trust on node team.

Based on my highly limited outsider's perspective, trying to kick him seems overly harsh. If people believe he's doing things poorly, an avenue should be created through which constructive criticism and feedback can be provided. We're all human, we make mistakes, and we sometimes don't understand each facet of problems we encounter.

[0] https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf

Can someone recap (or link to) the whole story behind the fork ?

https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165

I assume that they forked because they don't believe Rod should be on the node leadership teams.

I must say that he has represented and defended himself very well here, and as a newcomer to this issue I am impressed with his analysis. However if it was possible to turn against him for what I understand to be such small accusations, such as simply disagreeing with one usage of CoCs in a particular setting, how might the project deal with a member who argues against code of conducts in general? Or how about the Node code of conduct?

It does not seem fair to me to exclude someone beacuse they are engaging in the process of discussion about a project policy, even if that policy is a touchy subject like the code of conduct. If there is nobody to debate such policies because they are immediately shoved out the second that they do, does that not say something about the policy being questioned too?

Yes, I will admit I don't know anything about this situation and I haven't followed the story, but I agree that there is a general sub-culture today in many organizations of intolerance.

People have questions, and if they can ask them tactfully and diplomatically, they should not be eviscerated for "being on the wrong side of the debate." Whichever side is doing the eviscerating. There are two sides to a debate, otherwise it is some kind of fascism where there can be only one side.

(Unless one side says the other side is sub-human! Then they are wrong, and you should not listen. I only say this because, I do read the news and it looks like one really has to say this today to avoid being misunderstood. But taking that position, to me, would be an example of jumping the shark. I'm almost sure that's not what is happening here. I'm happy to listen if someone has more information.)

Ninja edit: I read the link to find out the story, and I don't specifically know any more than I knew when I started writing above. I believe that I have seen "this" before, though. It looks like "this" is a witch-hunt. But all of the context has evidently been removed so that outsiders don't see a biased view. So I guess I can't really know what this is about! Does this mean all views are biased?

Some person's feelings were hurt, and they went "I'll show you all" mode.

Jordan has apparently walked that back.

https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/1595#issuecomment-3...

Maybe now we've got goddam, real, actual Nazis to worry about people can stop expending effort in creating straw nazis out of thin air.

Bigger fish to fry, people...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com