At the time of writing that comment, no one in this thread had asked those question. Also, on the page linked, the author was not asking those question.
That led me to conclude that nobody asked those things.
After the leader of a substantial project disappears, in the ~20 minutes of incidental contact you have with the issue after having only just been introduced to it having not stumbled over a particular discussion out of sheer dumb fucking luck, you conclude that means the discussion never occurred. Do you really think that's a sound conclusion?
Let me put it this way, do you really think that, in the three months since this person disappeared, out of the dozens of people who have a far closer relationship to him than you do and a far greater personal stake in his wellbeing, that you are really the first person to consider whether something might have happened—to the point that you're comfortable to grandstand with a public indictment about how "sad" their behavior is?
What's with all the legal bluster in your comments here? Not only do the liabilities you're trying to conjure up not exist, but this is not even the first occurrence of something like this happening with GitHub. They have a documented policy for freeing up inactive names. (Spoiler alert: it's allowed, and they've done it.)
This is a genuine case of survivorship bias in action.
I guarantee you that there are people not using Clang or writing, let's say, C++ because of slow compile times. You just never hear about how much they hate using them, because those people no longer are using them.
> Great systems also have advice. There's no universally accepted name for this feature. Sometimes it's called hooks, or filters, or aspect-oriented programming. As far as I know, Lisp had it first, and it's called advice in Lisp. Advice is a mini-framework that provides before, around, and after hooks by which you can programmatically modify the behavior of some action or function call in the system. Not all advice systems are created equal. The more scope that is given to an advice system — that is, the more reach it has in the system it's advising — the more powerful the parent system will be.
A "Have you considered..." question asks for a "yes" or "no".
A "Why[...]" question asks for why.
Assuming that "Why didn't you just do X?" isn't really just a disingenuous way to say, "you're an idiot; do it this way instead", then you should ask for what you want and ask the why question, not the yes-or-no question. In the case that it is a disingenuous question, then that's something that's covered adequately by #5. Suggesting the avoidance of sarcasm is already broadly applicable enough to cover using questions when you really mean to make a statement. (Which is not specific to code reviews—it's as obnoxious in real life.)
It's vulnerable in that whichever threshold N that you choose allows for N participants to conspire to publish ahead of time, or M - N to conspire not to publish after the fact.
interesting. i hadn't seen this although I implemented something effectively the same, except that all keys (which could be any number ≥ 2) be combined to reveal the secret (or any information about it).
