This is a tired take. Can a company not legitimately improve their product/offering without this being accused at them?
If you are referring to GH being owned by MS now, it's 2020 for godsake. Can we move on from our fathers' trauma? MS has been damn good lately in support of developers and developer tools.
They are similar in that they are all job frameworks and you can run background jobs through them. Runly tries to be more prescriptive than Hangfire/Quartz in that jobs should process lists of items. We think this captures a lot of problems that developers deal with everyday. It also allows us to build goodies on top of jobs like multi-threading, retries, scaling, and UI status/progress. Check us out at https://www.runly.io
Something I've known for a while (but have really come to terms with more recently) is just how important writing skills are even for technical people (even coders). It's hard to get anything done if you can't convince people why they should listen to you.
Especially in this increasingly remote-connected world, writing skills are key.
That's why executives of big cos get paid big money. They are held accountable (or should be anyway) for the actions of their company. The buck stops with them so to speak.
If the thing is really a big deal, as in this case, maybe the exec should do more than just "send an email" and assume everything is fine.
If you publish sensitive information (even if you immediately remove it), that sensitive info is compromised. All the "unpublish" feature does is lull users who don't know any better into a false sense of security (I don't need to reset any passwords, I unpublished it).
Yes, you would need to publish a new version of the package with a different name. But the history of what happened (and consequently anyone depending on the old name) would be preserved.
Your "control" of your code is an illusion if you publish it as open source. This policy now makes clear the way it already works (or should have in the case of last week).
It is not insanity. It is actually what many sane package managers do. Allowing someone to "unpublish" something that many depend on - that is insanity.
It's not a decimal number. It's a version number. If you add the implicit .0 back to the end of 0.14, it is easier to see. 0.14.0 is obviously not a decimal number.
Curious if anyone else has tried it and what the HN community thinks of the scientific claims.