
Nvm will **not** be adding support for Ayo.js - bretc
https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/1595#issuecomment-324378894
======
brad0
> I'm not going to add support for a fork lightly; I don't think this will
> stick; and I don't think a fork is an appropriate or well-timed response to
> what's been happening. Either way, I wouldn't add support for a fork that
> adds nothing but a partial documentation commit - that has value for nobody.

I appreciate this straightforward and honest response to this issue. The
responder has looked at the benefits of the fork and decided that it doesn't
make sense to add it.

------
programmarchy
Looking at the forked repo all they did was rename node to ayo and add a
VALUES.md with very little substance. Looks like a power grab by a bunch of
control freaks to me.

At least io.js had some technical merit and seemed to genuinely want to
improve node (which arguably it did).

------
konsumer
I haven't gone very deep with this issue, but I worked with Rod briefly at
Nodesource, and hope more node-ecosystem projects respond like this. In the
short time we worked together, I was completely impressed with him technically
and socially. I was really surprised when I heard that anyone had an issue
with him. I specifically remember the COC (which I guess this is about) was
mandatory for all projects, and it's adherence was extremely important. I
think he has very high standards of quality, but never personally saw any kind
of hostile behavior (I'd say the opposite, as he was always really helpful.)
He is an asset to any team, and I hope this blows over soon, so he can get
back to doing what he's good at.

------
coldtea
Can we just let Ayo.js die in the obscurity it has an deserves and not
encourage this sort of politics?

------
TheAceOfHearts
On the subject of version managers for multiple programming languages, people
might be interested in checking out asdf [0]. nvm was my favorite tool for
handling multiple node versions, but I've found asdf suits my needs a bit
better.

I'd still reach for nvm for deploying to a server. To the best of my
knowledge, the code is portable across all UNIX-y OSs.

On the other hand, asdf supports multiple languages, so I was able to kill off
rvm too! It also has considerably better performance (specifically, startup
speed).

EDIT: As to the discussion regarding Ayo.js... I've never interacted with Rod
personally, but having read a few hundred of his miscellaneous responses on
GitHub, he has never struck me as someone unreasonable. His response to the
criticisms being raised seem very reasonable as well. If anything, I now feel
like I have a bit more trust on node team.

Based on my highly limited outsider's perspective, trying to kick him seems
overly harsh. If people believe he's doing things poorly, an avenue should be
created through which constructive criticism and feedback can be provided.
We're all human, we make mistakes, and we sometimes don't understand each
facet of problems we encounter.

[0] [https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf](https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf)

------
Raed667
Can someone recap (or link to) the whole story behind the fork ?

~~~
sb8244
[https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165)

I assume that they forked because they don't believe Rod should be on the node
leadership teams.

~~~
etplayer
I must say that he has represented and defended himself very well here, and as
a newcomer to this issue I am impressed with his analysis. However if it was
possible to turn against him for what I understand to be such small
accusations, such as simply disagreeing with one usage of CoCs in a particular
setting, how might the project deal with a member who argues against code of
conducts in general? Or how about the Node code of conduct?

It does not seem fair to me to exclude someone beacuse they are engaging in
the process of discussion about a project policy, even if that policy is a
touchy subject like the code of conduct. If there is nobody to debate such
policies because they are immediately shoved out the second that they do, does
that not say something about the policy being questioned too?

~~~
yebyen
Yes, I will admit I don't know anything about this situation and I haven't
followed the story, but I agree that there is a general sub-culture today in
many organizations of intolerance.

People have questions, and if they can ask them tactfully and diplomatically,
they should not be eviscerated for "being on the wrong side of the debate."
Whichever side is doing the eviscerating. There are two sides to a debate,
otherwise it is some kind of fascism where there can be only one side.

(Unless one side says the other side is sub-human! Then they are wrong, and
you should not listen. I only say this because, I do read the news and it
looks like one really has to say this today to avoid being misunderstood. But
taking that position, to me, would be an example of jumping the shark. I'm
almost sure that's not what is happening here. I'm happy to listen if someone
has more information.)

Ninja edit: I read the link to find out the story, and I don't specifically
know any more than I knew when I started writing above. I believe that I have
seen "this" before, though. It looks like "this" is a witch-hunt. But all of
the context has evidently been removed so that outsiders don't see a biased
view. So I guess I can't really know what this is about! Does this mean all
views are biased?

------
rendall
Jordan has apparently walked that back.

[https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/1595#issuecomment-3...](https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/1595#issuecomment-325159240)

------
andybak
Maybe now we've got goddam, real, actual Nazis to worry about people can stop
expending effort in creating straw nazis out of thin air.

Bigger fish to fry, people...

