Why is the contributing manual of your open source project more thoughtfully cultivated than your code style guide and testing procedure?

Why the fuck do you care about the message in my PR, or even merge vs rebase of commits, when your spaghetti-tomatosource is so richly saturated with critically minced bugmeat?

Why are you standing there, shouting at me about your convoluted rules, in your little brown uniform? Why do I feel like the enemy when I contribute a useful fix, something which makes the code work better?

You know what, fuck all of you, you jilted acetous neckbeards, I will deploy my secret weapon, I will bypass the power you hold over your tiny fascist digital dominions.

If you play it like this, I will summon the nefarious vile side of Open Source. I will usurp your throne. I will stab out your crying eyes, rip out your conceited tongue, impale your lonely heart.

Tremble before me! I wield the almighty, legendary Fork!

The king is dead, long live the king!

  • 3
  • 6
    But their ego! Have you ever thought about their ego?
    How could their poor ego take a blow like that? Just accepting other people's code into their project, like their own wasn't good enough?
    You monster!

  • 1
    Are you talking about Linux or BSD?
  • 7
    @gitlog Haha no, but similar ancient code guarded by people who love to argue about inane bullshit.

    I got yelled at for not squashing two commits and using "--" in a comment, instead of "—".

    If a reviewer would've asked me nicely to fix it, I would have. If they had amended my branch, I would've thought: "Oh, neat, they squashed my commits and made my dash prettier, how nice of them!"

    But what good is yelling and just closing my PR, keeping the bug in the code out of spite?
  • 3
    Fuck, thank you. This is the first proper rant i've read since i joined this site almost a full hour ago.
Add Comment