carussell

After the leader of a substantial project disappears, in the ~20 minutes of incidental contact you have with the issue after having only just been introduced to it having not stumbled over a particular discussion out of sheer dumb fucking luck, you conclude that means the discussion never occurred. Do you really think that's a sound conclusion?

Let me put it this way, do you really think that, in the three months since this person disappeared, out of the dozens of people who have a far closer relationship to him than you do and a far greater personal stake in his wellbeing, that you are really the first person to consider whether something might have happened—to the point that you're comfortable to grandstand with a public indictment about how "sad" their behavior is?

You are the worst kind of person. Fuck you.

Did you fabricate a quote? (And if so, why?) Neither "innovation" nor any derivatives of "innovate" appear in this post.

That's a strong claim. What led you to conclude that nobody asked any of those things?

What's with all the legal bluster in your comments here? Not only do the liabilities you're trying to conjure up not exist, but this is not even the first occurrence of something like this happening with GitHub. They have a documented policy for freeing up inactive names. (Spoiler alert: it's allowed, and they've done it.)

> I believe Clang et al are fast enough.

This is a genuine case of survivorship bias in action.

I guarantee you that there are people not using Clang or writing, let's say, C++ because of slow compile times. You just never hear about how much they hate using them, because those people no longer are using them.

A "Have you considered..." question asks for a "yes" or "no".

A "Why[...]" question asks for why.

Assuming that "Why didn't you just do X?" isn't really just a disingenuous way to say, "you're an idiot; do it this way instead", then you should ask for what you want and ask the why question, not the yes-or-no question. In the case that it is a disingenuous question, then that's something that's covered adequately by #5. Suggesting the avoidance of sarcasm is already broadly applicable enough to cover using questions when you really mean to make a statement. (Which is not specific to code reviews—it's as obnoxious in real life.)

Do you actually know this, or like most commenters here, was your introduction to this case the Washington Post that everyone else read?