Who's they? Most of PR commenters were courteous. The last few were rude, but so was the fafhrd91. https://gist.github.com/mafrasi2/debed733781db4aba2a52620b67...
> The last few were rude, but so was the fafhrd91
https://gist.github.com/pcr910303/d7722a26499d0e9d2f9034a06f...
I was there (as a user who closely followed development) during the nodejs > io.js split. While it worked out in the end, it felt like a bitter battle at first. Node survived by chance perhaps.
We have our async-std vs Tokio right now, I'd imagine having another split (at least in opinions and preference) on actix would still keep tension high.
It allowed for the chaffs to fall through making node a stronger project because it was clear that neither of the sides was going to "win" outright.
If the argument is that "maintainer is not doing his/her job of being a maintainer" and this argument is accepted by the users, then should the project be forked by someone who will do his or her job of being a maintainer, the users will flip their source repo pointer and move onto the fork effectively killing the original.
Does the fork care as much about TechEmpkwer benchmarks? What happens if it is slower because it forbids unsafe even where it makes sense?
There was a looming cliff in Async/await, which caused a split to some extent (some old libraries that no longer have maintainers, changes that make updates difficult). A fork with those changes looming would mean divergence when rewriting to support Async/await.
Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I doubt we'd have had a successful fork earlier. Let's see if it happens now ...
Those "bad apples" are part of the Rust community, and the Rust community needs to take responsibility for them the same way any community needs to take responsibility for their bad apples even if it's just to denounce their behaviour.
Good thing that those who submitted the patches and PRs were polite; they're not the ones who caused this maintainer to quit though I'd wager...
There is a prominent "Fork" and "Clone" button in every GitHub repo. If you're so fucking sick of the lack of support from the maintainer, fork it, fix the flaws that you've found, and assume some of the responsibility for the project.
This whole situation is a bunch of people getting angry because of what they view as a lack of accountability. That's preposterous - the nature of GitHub and open source makes it super easy for you to assume some of that accountability yourself. The fact that so many people chose to get upset rather than assuming accountability speaks volumes to me.
Pull requests welcome, jerks. </s>
Yes, but that's not what they said. They were hateful and virtrolous, which is never appropriate. Fork it and fix the problems, create a new library which has the same API but is more sound, promote an alternative library in its place, offer to lend a hand in maintenance - these are the correct solutions.