The state of things sucks :-(
It's opensource -> https://github.com/digicert/trustcore
> This ticket is rather long and has a lot of irrelevant content regarding this new topic. If I need to bring in a colleague I do not want them to have to wade through all the irrelevant context. If you would like, please open a new issue with regards to how we support middlebox compatibility.
The author turns this into:
> The GitHub issue comment left at the end leads me to believe that they aren't really interested in RFC compliance. There isn't a middleground here or a "different way" of implementing middlebox compatibility. It's either RFC compliant or not. And they're not.
This is a bad-faith interpretation of the maintainer's response. They only asked to open a new, more specific issue report. The maintainer always answered within minutes, which I find quite impressive (even after the author ghosted for months). The author consumed the maintainer's time and shouldn't get the blame for the author's problems.
I certainly understand the maintainer here, because that’s what I keep telling colleagues at work.
Tickets get really cumbersome if they are not clear and actionable.
This game of stalling / obfuscating via the issue tracker gets very old.
Out of interest: which FOSS projects are you maintaining, and how many users do these have, approximately?
wolfSSL also sells commercial licenses so it's not like they're going uncompensated for their work. Regardless, we shouldn't put people on pedestals because their title is "FOSS maintainer"
OK, so: zero. It is relevant because if you did, you probably wouldn't feel so entitled.
> The maintainer is clearly engaging and knows what the problem is but stalls on the "last mile" which is issue creation. Do you agree?
No, I don't agree. This is just your interpretation, done in bad faith.
> wolfSSL also sells commercial licenses so it's not like they're going uncompensated for their work.
The user in question does not have a commercial license, so in this case, the maintainer was not compensated for assisting that user.
> Regardless, we shouldn't put people on pedestals because their title is "FOSS maintainer"
We shouldn't shit on other people's work we got for free just because they asked for a tiny little thing we might do to help them. It's you who needs to get down from that pedestal.
...what? Are we living in the same universe? What exactly did I say that makes me entitled?
> The user in question does not have a commercial license
Do you know that for sure or are you speculating?
> We shouldn't shit on other people's work we got for free
When did I shit on the work of wolfSSL? I'm saying that it appears they were engaging but got hung up on a small issue.
> It's you who needs to get down from that pedestal.
Respectfully, you need to get a grip.
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...
The OPs blog post also reeks of a similar style to the hit piece.
Given the large delay between the initial report and further responses by the user `feld`, I wonder if an OpenClaw agent was given free reign to try to clear up outstanding issues in some project, including handling the communication with the project maintainers?
Maybe I am getting too paranoid..
ospray•2h ago
magicalhippo•1h ago
[1]: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls/
weinzierl•1h ago
gspr•1h ago
The state of things sucks :-(
koakuma-chan•1h ago
koakuma-chan•1h ago
dwedge•1h ago
zephen•1h ago