[dralley]

>Looking at its repo for 'activity' without context - maybe nothing needs to be changed and its working as designed - is completely disingenious.

>Why should repo activity without context be used as an indicator of anything in discussion instead of focusing on what Redhat has done?

"Activity" doesn't just refer to commit traffic. People were filing issues and making pull requests and not getting any responses for more than a year. And furthermore it was a Python 2 tool and the Python 2 EOL date is fast approaching.

I agree that the packagers should have at least left a note on GitHub (even if they thought it would go unread) - but clearly it was not a "maybe it's just mature and nothing needed to be changed" situation.

[throw2016]

This is muddying the waters. Surely if you have gone through the trouble of looking at the repo and finding these pull requests you would also know the context and should then share it to give others here a context. Without that you are just here making 'vague' charges given dstat is a well known, highly regareded and mature tool. The Python3 port was already done by the author so the python2 eol seems a complete non sequitor. Again a rush to condemn without good reason.

Are you saying anyone running a Python2 project can expect to have Redhat reimplement it in Python3 secretly and have people defend it on HN? This kind of behavior is simply indefensible.

It's obvious there is a culture clash of open source developers sponsored or working for corporates conflating heavy activity on Github that they are paid to perform as their day jobs as the only open source model. But open source was traditionally about people having other jobs and using their spare time to develop open source without profit motives because they believed in the movement. They certainly did not face corporates and paid developers analysing their frequency of contributions to dismiss their efforts and justify an unethical takeover.