> The recent shit storm was not caused by a malicious act on the part of anybody at UMN. The "overworked" maintainers made a mistake and ascribed malice to the actions of a good-faith contributor who also happened to be from UMN
This is not true and is explained in the article:
> That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans.
This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.
This is not true and is explained in the article:
> That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans.
This is the “recent shit storm” and can in no way be described as “good-faith” particularly after the disgusting response from the researcher after being called out on their shit.