Yes but the exhaustion was not 100% organic. There was a bit of social engineering towards wearing the maintainer down even further.
I'm just pointing it out because I think it's going to be a tricky balance to strike. How can we, as a community of people who care about free and/or open source software tell the difference between:
- a good faith effort to inform the wider community of a maintainer who is behaving badly
- a bad-faith contributor pressuring an overworked maintainer to include a malicious commit
I think you're the former, but I'm rather worried about the latter. And I'm interested in strategies for telling the two apart.
I’m actually neither. I’m a big fan of forks. If something isn’t working out well, it should be very easy to create a fork and switch to the fork (i.e. forks should be lightweight just like branches).
We can’t rely on everyone to follow our schedules, so if there’s a desire we should take the lead on getting it done instead of dragging each other down. As such, I didn’t post this to shame anyone, mostly to provide an onus for switching to a fork. (Or I should say, another onus, since there are already a few reasons to not contribute to Gitea, mostly coming down to size of the project and inertia preventing refactors or redesigns.)
