upvote
> it happened completely in the open

You don't create PRs like this when you're working "completely in the open"

  test ci #30412
  No description provided.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260509235415/https://github.co...
reply
You don't test CI before you publish stuff?
reply
I give the PR a proper title on creation. I don't see any reason to create a PR with a title of "test ci" and then rename it later to:

  Rewrite Bun in Rust #30412
reply
well you'd hate my work then plenty of people have zero issue opening

DRAFT: DON'T MERGE CI TEST

and then they forget to close em when they go another route and they sit around for 2 months until they auto close or they fix it up into something reviewable. It's been a thing at literally every place I've worked are you really saying you don't see that?

reply
It wasn't out in the open. It was never announced or discussed ahead of time. It was just done because the company who purchased Bun wanted it done, and they only communicated it was happening once they started.

I don't consider the following comment to be good, honest, and open communication:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48016880#48019226

reply
deleted
reply
What was dishonest about that comment?

> There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely.

... and a few days later he decided that the code wouldn't get thrown out. That doesn't make the comment itself dishonest, he didn't have a crystal ball.

You can absolutely argue that the rewrite was not communicated clearly once they committed to it, but I don't think the comment you linked to there stands as evidence of poor communication at the time it was written.

reply
He knew he wasn't going to throw out the code when he made that comment.
reply
I think he didn't know. We are at an impasse.
reply