A recent comment indicates that this outcome was more like a mistake and less line the skulduggery that the title indicates.
Public shaming might be a good tool for this kind of thing in general but maybe in this case it was premature.
Public shaming might be a good tool for this kind of thing in general but maybe in this case it was premature.
If somebody wants to embrace YOLO with their $$ project and be a bit more cautious with their OSS project, that's ok.
I'm just pointing it out because I think it's going to be a tricky balance to strike. How can we, as a community of people who care about free and/or open source software tell the difference between:
- a good faith effort to inform the wider community of a maintainer who is behaving badly
- a bad-faith contributor pressuring an overworked maintainer to include a malicious commit
I think you're the former, but I'm rather worried about the latter. And I'm interested in strategies for telling the two apart.
We can’t rely on everyone to follow our schedules, so if there’s a desire we should take the lead on getting it done instead of dragging each other down. As such, I didn’t post this to shame anyone, mostly to provide an onus for switching to a fork. (Or I should say, another onus, since there are already a few reasons to not contribute to Gitea, mostly coming down to size of the project and inertia preventing refactors or redesigns.)