I have been told that the PSF is aware of these issues.
Is it possible that this move to the PSF is good then? Is Reitz involved in the project at all now?
As a side anecdote, from my own experience with bipolar friends and family that kind of private manipulation + large-scale deception seems sadly familiar. I'm not sure if it's a feature of bipolar disorder or if it's a sad coincidence in our experiences.
Judging by the commit history and the README.md, with his name in fancy cursive on top of the PSF logo, this seems to be the Kenneth Reitz Show featuring PSF at best.
Off topic, but the total looks disgustingly low, if companies like Microsoft, Google, and Slack have donated. Shame on them, they could splurge some more for the FOSS they use...
>On March 15 2018, he contacted me to talk about the fundraiser. He told me he was uncertain what to do with this amount of money – he said his original goal was just to raise $5k to buy a computer. Privately, I was skeptical that the $5k computer had anything to do with Requests. Requests is a small pure-Python library; if you want to work on it, then any cheap laptop is more than sufficient. $5k is the price of a beefy server or top-end gaming rig. But I figured that even if he spent $5k of the money on some unrelated computer, we could call that compensation for his past work, and it would still leave ~$25k to fulfill the promises he'd made in the fundraiser. And this was clearly a great opportunity to build some amazing new stuff. So I didn't say anything about the computer.
Until here, and if it's his project/fundraiser, it's his call. He could have spent it all on blow, and as long as he delivers the end result he raised funds for, it would be totally fine.
What he actually did in the end however (not work at all for the project and expect the volunteer to do it for free while he kept all the money) is a no go...
Ranging from bizarre religion issues in the workplace to top-down bullying. Not the same e.g. no similar rumors about misused grants or donations, but a lot of creepy comments about management behavior in and around numfocus / anaconda / etc.
Instead I see he is still on the project, his name is even the first in the README (before the PSF is mentioned). Does he now have a position in PSF? Because that's just inviting problems given his past behaviour.
"But none of the money was available to fulfill those commitments; instead, he was going to wait for me to implement the new features for him, and then he needed the entire $28k to pay for writing documentation for my features."
Your link has a typo: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/commits/master
I'm well aware a suboptimal repository commit history hygiene doesn't necessarily correlate with the actual code quality, but yeah this really doesn't look nice nor convenient to work with. I wonder e.g. what the reason is behind pushing a hundred tiny updates to the README in one day, to master?
Rebase isn't at all slow. I know this because I do it often to squash my own commits or move things around between branches.
> Nah, rebase is too slow on large histories and it might not be your own commit which complicates things.
I don't see any questions being asked. Rebase on the commits we're discussing (readme tweaks) are trivial: fixup fixup fixup
Read the thread next time. I started by asking if there's a fixer and then someone suggests a single command that absolutely doesn't solve the problem and would take enormous time to use on some projects, even more so if your PC isn't the best of the best.
Are you thinking about rebasing through an IDE? IDEs are uniformly terrible at git.
I am not thinking about rebasing trough an IDE. Try rebasing in Chromium's repository, it's simply not fast. The thing I asked for is something that would auto-fix the entire commit histories in cases such as the Requests repository, the suggested use of rebase is too tedious and slow. Has something still remained unclear?
The intent for a tool which could do this quickly is unclear. Rebasing millions of commits will be slow, also rebasing published history will also generate a lot of extra paperwork.
Writing a utility to sort a rebase todo by message and change the later commits with the same message to be fixups is trivial.
That doesn’t apply in this case, though, where the README is markdown
rst may be less popular than md but there's no shortage of local preview options, including plugins/extensions for popular editors.
This however, from TFA, is troubling:
I think a lot of people don't realize how little Reitz actually has to do with Requests development. For many years now, actual maintenance has been done almost exclusively by other volunteers. If you look at the maintainers list on PyPI, you'll see he doesn't have PyPI rights to his own project, because he kept breaking stuff, so the real maintainers insisted on revoking his access. If you clone the Requests git repo, you can run git log requests/ to see a list of every time someone changed the library's source code, either directly or by merging someone else's pull request. The last time Reitz did either was in May 2017, when he made some whitespace cleanups.
At least as far as commits go, his main contributions since then appear to consist of merging some small doc fixes, and monetizing the project by adding donation links, ads, intrusive sponsored links, etc. All of this money goes directly into his pocket, not the project's maintainers.
> You may certianly put your trust in this code.