> Misrepresenting the actual statement this way is garbage. There's a world of difference in the two statements.

That's debatable. What's not debatable is that not giving OP credit for the fix is disrespectful and bordering on plagiarism.

Even if OP's patch wasn't as good as the final one (and giving OP feedback + time to improve their patch themselves isn't an option for some reason), not giving him credit is wrong. This bug would have remained were it not for his effort debugging and developing a fix, and his company investing the development time on it.

I expected the maintainer to be bit of an asshole. Apparently they were totally respectful. They probably figured `Reported-by` is good enough credit, not putting themselves in the author's shoes (we all do this all the time). The author could have e-mailed the maintainer back and ask them to review their attribution practices and that would've been it. Instead they wrote a scathing article.

It’s not debatable at all. It’s simply malicious to put something someone never said in a block quote to make them look bad, especially when the block quote font size is like twice that of everything else. They also cowardly added a “(paraphrasing)” outside to cover their ass. (Edit: in case it’s not clear, I’m not saying they added that after the post was published.)

They achieved their goal: look at how many comments assume that malicious “paraphrasing”. They also made sure those of us who aren’t so quick to jump to conclusions after hearing a one-sided story will never interact with them ever.

Malicious or a mis-remembering?

Conveniently misremembering a quote and making that gross misrepresentation a callout is indistinguishable from malice. I cover my ass by avoiding people who commit deniable acts indistinguishable from malice.

The OP did say he was paraphrasing.