Comment

Comment on GitHub - LadybirdBrowser/ladybird: Truly independent web browser

gon@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

Sigh, you do have a point.

Maybe this was by a different reviewer, idk.

It was. Some other member of SerenityOS, not the person behind Ladybird (awesomekling).

blog author should be more accurate (see above)

That’s fair. I’ll say though, the blog post is dated from 1 day after the PR was actually merged. It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.

He may be. Idk.

Yeah, I was just trying to say that that wasn’t the point of my rant. I get it I get it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.

That never happened on this PR. The only human reply before the merge (aside from the submitter) was this:

Please fix the commit messages (see BuggieBot’s comment); and maybe this can go in one commit? Doesn’t really need to be 5 separate ones.

And this is BuggieBot’s comment:

Hello!

One or more of the commit messages in this PR do not match the SerenityOS code submission policy, please check the lint_commits CI job for more details on which commits were flagged and why.
Please do not close this PR and open another, instead modify your commit message(s) with git commit --amend and force push those changes to update this PR.

It’s a completely different.

This, plus the tone of the blog post looks like they were on a crusade instead of trying to accurately portray events.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, my point is that we all need to be careful jumping to conclusions, especially in FOSS where discussion almost exclusively happens asynchronously in text and with people with different backgrounds. Pretty much everyone involved failed at that.

source
- gon@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  And this is BuggieBot’s comment:
  
  Yeah I was referencing that comment.
  
  Sequence of events:
  
  PR trying to change pronouns.
  
  Automated response citing policy.
  
  Author takes note of it for blog post.
  
  PR fixed and merged.
  
  Blog post published.
  
  Precocious, certainly, and I agree it was misguided. The blog post was indeed emotionally motivated, that’s more than clear.
  
  Sorry to beat a dead horse here
  
  It’s alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
  
  source
  - sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Right, but the policy was commit hygiene (lots of small commits), which has nothing to do with the “no politics” policy. It’s right there in the comment, and the suggestion is to squash the commits into one.
    
    It’s alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
    
    Agreed. And unfortunately, I felt it necessary to be really wordy to not come off as supporting intolerance in any way, while still arguing that I would’ve done the same (reject 1-line cosmetic PRs).
    
    This is some kind of correlary to Poe’s Law, or perhaps Godwin’s Law.
    
    source
    gon@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    Right, but the policy was commit hygiene (lots of small commits), which has nothing to do with the “no politics” policy. It’s right there in the comment, and the suggestion is to squash the commits into one.
    
    Suspiciously close to what Hitler would say… /s
    
    source
    -> View More Comments