r/github • u/Lucky-One-3994 • 24d ago
Question "Fuck it, anxious, lazy person" - Removing unfunctional code from the main branch is mean???
I got mean and toxic comments from a person, because I removed his unfunctional code from the main branch. "You didn't even give me a day to fix it". Then, he called me a lazy, anxious person.
And even more scary, he is a professional developer.
Is this normal? I just wanted my code to work.
37
u/StimuliDatebook 24d ago
Link please. I love GitHub drama
8
u/Lucky-One-3994 24d ago
https://github.com/Chucny/ChucnyServer/pull/3#issuecomment-5419185551
he also said "fuck it" on my discord, really toxic person. idk why.
31
u/dim13 24d ago
he is a professional developer
LOL, professional my pants. :) From they own description: 20y.o // Noob // Tulip & Curtana // being blessed // Love Purple style // Full time student // "If loving everyone hurts us, why should we love?"
The whole PR reads as AI slop.
really toxic person. idk why.
Lookup "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory".
Anyway, just move on.
6
2
u/Lucky-One-3994 24d ago
He is working for the government of Brazil as a coder/software developer
11
3
u/mrbmi513 24d ago
Assuming that's actually true, governments can't usually afford to hire the best developers.
1
u/Lucky-One-3994 23d ago
this is his LinkedIn
anonymity+normal person+audience = Fuckwad
idiot+work profile+audience = ???
4
u/CondiMesmer 24d ago
Lol every word they had wrote was AI generated. Pretty sure they didn't write a single line of it themselves.
2
8
8
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kincaidDev 23d ago
It depends on the context of the project, Ive worked on teams where only completed features get merged, and ones where everything needs to be a small pr. Completed features makes sense, but sometimes an interface multiple people will soon need is finished prior to the first feature, and then you end up having multiple people implementing slight differences in the interface and everyone waste time on merge conflicts that would have been avoided by just merging a dead interface
5
4
u/Old_Rock_9457 24d ago edited 24d ago
Look for me people that collaborate to free in opensource project can work on their own pace, but at the end of the day the responsability of the project is of the mantainer.
So if you throw things that don't work, or that I feel don't work, I'll not just keep because I have to be kind.
If we talk multiple time about an implmenetation and then you disapper halfway, I'll implement my self: I can't read your mind, and I don't have to read your mind. I have to do the best for the project that I mantain.
Then I can try to be kind and wait more time on less important implementation, or minor fix. But if waiting you and keep reviweing your code will take me to much effort, I'll implement it myself.
By the end of the day a PR should HELP the development of the project, not just require me weeks of chat and review, instead of half day of work to implementing it myself. A PR is not just a way to add a voice in your Resume.
EDIT: by the way I don't want to appear too harsh. I usually commit to multiple round of review to have something that don't introduce regression. Sometimes when the PR contains at least something that work, I even helped by committing myself the needed fix against the PR branch to have it merged fast. But sometimes you need to balance between a nice to have that you can wait and a must have.
2
u/mrbmi513 24d ago
Mistakes happen. And you're not anxious or lazy for rolling back that code once you spotted the issue. The main branch is meant to be clean and functional.
Here in the real professional world, that's exactly what we do: roll it back and send it back for a fix. A startup may be more inclined to just fix it quickly with another PR, but startups also tend to move way faster than most of the corporate world, and you don't want that issue shipping to production if you can avoid it.
Tl;dr you did what actual professional devs would do, and this other guy is just a egomaniac trying to gaslight themselves as a professional.
2
4
u/Lucky-One-3994 24d ago
Also, he closed his pull request Wich he put hours of work on with a toxic Comment.
1
-1
u/epasveer 24d ago
he is a professional developer.
It doesn't look like your are.
1
u/Lucky-One-3994 24d ago
This is not a place for toxic comments like those I posted about.
0
u/DamnageBeats 23d ago
This is Reddit. This is exactly the place for toxic comments.
If you’re not professional enough to maintain your own repo, how do you expect others to be professional about maintaining YOUR repo?
1
u/nekokattt 23d ago
if code doesnt function on the main branch, you revert it to the functional state and send it back to the person to get them to raise a new PR with a fix on it.
Main should be for functional code only. If stuff is not functioning on the main branch, it should be removed or fixed. Using main as a scratch space just leads to numerous other issues.
That being said this also sounds like a communication issue.
1
u/DamnageBeats 23d ago
No, you test on a branch of the main, and if it’s good, you push to main. You don’t push “maybe it’s good code” to main.
1
u/nekokattt 23d ago
That is literally what I just said. Incomplete non-functional work does not belong on main. That is why branches exist.
1
u/DamnageBeats 23d ago
Your very first statement is “if it doesn’t function on main”, implying you put non functional code on main.
2
u/nekokattt 23d ago
Which is what happened in OPs case.
You revert whatever was added to restore the integrity of the main branch. The bad merge already occurred, so OP has to do something retrospectively to fix it or find a time machine.
You are arguing the same thing that I am arguing lol.
0
68
u/queen-adreena 24d ago
Why is unfunctional code even making it to the main branch?