Comment by j-pb
5 years ago
Yes and pushing the archive button is saying "I won't produce any more packages sorry."
What they did was climb through everyones window to get the cardboard box back, just as with the npm leftpad incident.
Stop painting the narative like people demand some volunteer to do more free work, when all they do is ask to not be actively sabotaged.
No, he didn't break into people's house, started their computers and started deleting stuff. It's all the same as the day before yesterday.
Except for they didn't simply push a commit which replaces the code with a readme that tells people to go maintain it themselves or fuck off, they emptied it, rewrote their history and did a git push --force.
And frankly I don't buy the story that they wanted to put the code on their own repository anyways, seems more like a concession because the other contributors also hold some copyright.
No, he just stopped dropping the package on the street every Monday at 7am. Whoever picked up the package in the past, still has it - or had the option to preserve it.
If your workflow relied on a package being delivered every morning, even unchanged, it's your own fault. He never made that guarantee.
Stop painting the narrative like people owe you anything, when you're just failing to correctly evaluate the actual resiliency (non-)guarantees of production pipelines based on random github repositories.
Yeah there's this common concept in society called trust, aka a social contract, that people don't advertise their stuff first only to deliberately screw you over.
And yes shockingly people are entitled to be treated fairly and not to be sabotaged. And no, providing them with a library for a limited period of time and then being fed up with it's maintenance doesn't somehow earn you that right. It gives you the right to walk away, but clearly thats wasn't enough for the author.
But hey if you want that to live and bathe in that kind of toxicity, enjoy!
Caveat Emptor.