• Zeth0s@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why would they accept PR at all if they don’t have a robust testing process and approvals are dictated by customers needs?

    The message as it is now to potential contributors is that their contribution in not welcome, unless it’s free labor that financially benefits only ibm.

    Which is fair, but the message itself is a new PR issue for red hat

    • yarn
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • Zeth0s@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I read it, and I read the messages from the devs. The communication issue I am trying to point is also highlighted in the comments: if the decision on merging a PR is uniquely dictated by financial benefits of IBM, ignoring the broader benefits of the community, the message is that red hat is looking for free labor and it is not really interested in anything else. Which is absolutely the case, as we all know, but writing it down after the recent events is another PR issue, as red hat justified controversial decisions on the lack of contributions from downstream.

        The Italian dev tried to put it down as “we have to follow our service management processes that are messy, tedious and expensive” but he didn’t address the problems in the original message. The contributor himself felt like they asked his contribution just to reject it because of purely financial reasons without any additional details. It is a new PR incident

        • yarn
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator