Readit NewsDead Comment
Dead Comment
Does Red Hat ship (and maintain) arbitrary 3rd party code?
I don't know what you mean by "arbitrary", though. It makes no sense in context, and is notably at odds with your earlier use of the word "curated". Nobody ships random code. That wouldn't be curated, nor would it be useful.
Toward the bottom of the page they talk about contributing back to open source projects and sponsoring the development of some packages, so it certainly appears to be a curated set of existing Go libraries.
> If the former, how are they going to guarantee their "3 years of bug fixes"?
Red Hat provides 10+ years on the code they ship. What's so shocking about 3?
I'm sticking with "fuck this guy".
If you really want to bear a cross, I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.
Where was ours when we drove him to that crime?
> I can think of a few better candidates for your poster boy of injustice.
Unlike some people, I don't feel it is morally appropriate to pick and choose who gets justice.
1) That governors as a whole have these powers.
2) That "hints about their power" would prompt them to act in the manner he wishes.
The governors don't need hints about their power in this area, they are well aware of it. They don't fail to exercise it as he wants them to because they need a "hint", they fail to exercise it as he wants them to because they do not agree with him.
I'm not addressing the thread as a whole. I'm addressing this little corner of it. I'm under no obligation to address the thread as a whole in every comment I make, and doing so would be both pointless and tiring.
What is true justice?
Whatever justice is, it cannot be forfeiting our own empathy and humanity.
2) You are mistaken if you believe all or even a substantial minority of the governors would ever agree with your views in this matter.
Second is that I worry that bugs won't get filled against the original repos for people using your version.
Finally, I'd be worried about your version of packages drifting away from the original due to change in one or the other that the other party doesn't agree with. And then as a package author, it reflects badly on my project if your version of my library breaks, even if it's not my fault.
Import paths are not the appropriate method of providing "credit". That's the sort of thing that is handled by copyright notices, documentation, and metadata.
It's generally preferred that if you're using a software distribution, you either test bugs against a "pure" upstream version before reporting them, or report them to the maintainers of the distribution, who can triage and, when appropriate, forward bug reports upstream (possibly with patches).