1. -1
  1.  

  2. [Comment removed by author]

    1. 1

      There’s a period there, not a comma like in your headline.

      Apologies for that. Either this site, or perhaps HN, has complained about the verbatim quote, so I had to shorten it (and probably copied it over to the other site). I didn’t (and still don’t) believe that changing a period into a comma changes the meaning, but if it appears so, I apologise, that was not my intention. Perhaps the title can be changed?

      It would seem to me that the ‘actually important work’ refers to the proposal itself, not a code review.

      Here we disagree. It refers to other work in general.

      the title is clickbait

      Well, it reflects pretty well the hostile culture of the Go Team I would say. Se my parallel comment I wrote to angersock. There is a deep disconnects between how they want to appear to the world (welcoming, inclusive, they have CoCs, community managers, etc), and the harsh reality (again, this has nothing to do with the change itself which personally I think it’s frivolous).

      And this is why I posted it here. I mean sure, in itself it’s pointless bickering, but I hoped it would stimulate a discussion about how the Go community treats its members in general. But it appears I was wrong.

      1. 2

        I hoped it would stimulate a discussion about how the Go community treats its members in general. But it appears I was wrong.

        If your goal was to stimulate a conversation – I would say you went about it poorly. No context, just a cherry picked headline and a valueless first comment: “I love how we are such a welcoming community!”

        It seems from another comment that you wanted to start a conversation about hypocrisy in the Go community, which is fair enough, but if you are going to do that, might as well include the WHOLE of the comment from your title (and with correct punctuation).

        @EddieRingle This proposal has not been discussed widely nor has it been accepted. Please do not spam us with code reviews. The Go Team has enough to do with work that’s actually important.

        It is clear to everybody that adding a simple feature to the language is trivial. It’s also clear that plenty of people would like this feature (I myself would have liked it sometime). But that said, just because one can, is not an argument that one should. Any however small and simple addition to a language has long-term costs. If we accept this, it will become even more difficult in the future to have a more general mechanism, and we need to remain backward compatible.

        Let’s wait and see what other people say before jumping the gun. Thanks.

    2. 1

      I love how we are such a welcoming community!

      1. 2

        A community doesn’t have to be super welcoming to new people that are ignoring feedback and whose changes could break things for thousands of other users.

        1. 3

          Nobody is breaking anything (this change would be backwards compatible) and nobody is ignoring any feedback, but that is beside the point. The change itself is irrelevant (and in my opinion, frivolous, I would vote against it). What matters is the response and particularly the tone of the response given to potential new contributors.

          Prototyping work while making a proposal is the norm for the Go team but it’s apparently spam when it comes from new Go contributors.

          Personally, I do not care the slightest bit about how project maintainers treat other people. In fact, I certainly don’t mind acid language and hostility. I prefer it! And I’ve been accused countless times of being unwelcoming myself.

          But I am bothered by hypocrisy. It’s totally ok to run your project GTFO-style. In fact, I prefer these type of no-bullshit projects like OpenBSD. What I don’t find ok is the pretence of friendliness when the reality is different. They have a (hired) community manager (and a CoC) for God’s sake!

          1. 2

            Ah, thanks for elaborating on your position!