scljstcwombat
> You took no time to talk to Ben about his position and to talk him around to making an apology and reversing his decision.
Whereas just above:
> it's that when he was overruled by Isaac some hours later, he unilaterally reverted Isaac's commit. (And, it must be said, sent a very nasty private note to make clear that this was no accident.)
I don't know why you thought you were privy to all the communication that went on in this situation, but that sentence ought to indicate to you that you are not, in fact, omniscient.
The fact that Ben remains absolutely unrepentant on this issue, and sees "I was following the project's rules to the letter on an issue which I myself dismissed as trivial" as a valid excuse should be to his lasting shame, and you should be ashamed of perpetuating it.
But don't worry guys, they had a security audit[2].
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20101228041356/http://npmjs.org/ [2] http://blog.npmjs.org/post/80277229932/newly-paranoid-mainta...
If this were just some third party, perhaps this wouldn't be significant. But indutny's on node core, the technical committee, the advisory board meetings, and is the original forker of io.js. His actions are central here.
I swear Chris Dickinson is the only sane one in this whole mess. Possibly because he's new. Possibly because his employer is the only one involved that's not beholden to VC money and expectations of return.
If he needs sign-off or whatever, it's not like he doesn't have friends in all the forks. I'm pre-emptively calling bullshit on anyone who invokes the Joyent bogeyman here; tons of PRs land without their involvement. What's the difference here.
That's pretty antagonistic IYAM.
That is one of the most comedic issues on github. Worth a read, but tl;dr:
"all we need is to compile these ancient libraries! It should be easy, they are ancient and I am async!" ... "I failed to compile these ancient libraries."
They probably don't want to publicly call out one of the core committers whose promised work is lagging. Or admit that the previous project lead was a poor choice who let it stagnate (but yet is inexplicably in the "Joyent did a bad job" camp). What good would that do anyone, apart from satisfy our boundless curiosity?
1) a) the merge was accomplished trivially by another maintainer; the idea that there was "more work" required of ben is demonstrably false.
1) b) he undertook more work to revert the existing commit, also see 2)
2) a) at the time he reverted the commit, there was substantial explanation on the issue on why it was important.
2) b) because Ben failed to check with his own colleague, he was unaware the commit had in fact been signed off - there was no rule problem here, apart from "not telling Ben".
3) lots of people do nice things and are assholes in other circumstances.
Apart from the sarcastic tone of his post ("if this gets us scores of female contributors" indeed), the grapevine says he was pretty deeply offensive to Issac over the issue as well.