[francislavoie]

Caddy doesn't hit the front page of HN all too often. But when it does, this issue gets brought up by one of two people. That's why it's annoying. It's so predictable and so annoying. We've already said our piece on the topic repeatedly, being asked to repeat ourselves again is insulting to us. Because "this is low priority and we have no plans to fix it in the immediate future" is clearly not an answer for someone who cares about this issue and mentions it again.

[xp84]

I wish my biggest problem was that two people mentioned (correctly) a minor flaw I have, once every two years.

You’ve explained why you won’t fix it (seems that you don’t feel you’ve got sufficient coverage to be confident to do so, or that it’s not possible to cover this type of change) so just put an faq up about it and do not take it personally. You cannot expect zero criticism.

[JimDabell]

You are not the sole audience for this discussion. Just because they mention something you have heard before, it doesn’t mean they are deliberately taunting or provoking you. I’m glad they mentioned it. This thread gave me important new information about the project.

[francislavoie]

We're perfectly within our rights to express how it makes us feel for it to be brought up, especially with the history we've had around it. It's caused us a lot of grief and we'd just like for it to stop being shoved in our face. That's all. If it was brought up by someone totally unique (not repeated by the same person as before, who we've already answered) then I would have had a different, more tactful response.

I really don't think it's fair for you to make a judgement on me or the project from an interaction like this. At least judge the project on its technical merits. I've been very transparent here. But I can't stop you from having your thoughts. It is what it is.

[JimDabell]

> being asked to repeat ourselves again is insulting to us.

> we'd just like for it to stop being shoved in our face.

This is the comment you are referring to:

> There still remains this simple to reproduce bug where the page doesn't load of you use the full domain name of a site.

They aren’t asking you to repeat yourself. They aren’t shoving it in your face. This is an open discussion thread with many participants. They weren’t talking to you directly. This is information anybody here can find interesting and relevant. I did.

> I really don't think it's fair for you to make a judgement on me or the project from an interaction like this. At least judge the project on its technical merits.

How you are reacting to this is far more important to me than the original bug.

Remember when 37signals suffered data loss because they were using GET requests to delete things? When people pointed out they had a bug, they were offended and blamed GWA. What happened next? The same thing happened all over again, users suffered more data loss.

Or how about when Naomi Wu reported a problem with Signal, where the common use case of third-party keyboards for Chinese people was rendering all of their security worthless? They dismissed that as somebody with a grudge and ignored her for a year. What happened next? People found out that Chinese keyboards were compromised; she was 100% right, and Signal users were in danger.

I’ve seen what happens when people have this attitude towards inconvenient people reporting inconvenient bugs. It’s a danger to users, and you are making Caddy seem dangerous with this attitude. I was a happy user of Caddy right up until this thread, and even halfway down this thread – even after reading the mention of the bug – but your reaction has flipped that to the opposite because I can’t trust that there aren’t more bugs you are handling this way.

[m_sahaf]

This is being blown out of proportion. You're discounting an entire project and your experience of the software over a person expressing exasperation over an inconsequential feature (not a bug) that even the author of curl had his run through and frustration. The request was not dismissed, rather it was discussed at length on our issue tracker. The OP knows it was discussed at length because they linked to the discussion thread in the earlier times they brought this up. Moreover, the way they presented it this time is snide, agree or not. To quote Matt's statement of the project being "stable and mature" just to say "except you didn't implement my niche feature" (yes, editorialized) is not criticism nor a feature request. It's veiled instigation hiding behind plausible deniability.

Anyways, on the feature request, Caddy is not the only software who disagrees with it being valid, and curl had their back-and-forth on it. There's no legitimate bug being dismissed, and you can go through the issue tracker to audit it. Equating this discussion with 37signals or Signal is false equivalence.

Disclaimer: Caddy maintainer

[JimDabell]

> a person expressing exasperation

They accused them of a grudge, an attack, slander, and shoving it in their face. For something as mild as this:

> There still remains this simple to reproduce bug where the page doesn't load of you use the full domain name of a site.

That’s a long way beyond exasperation, that’s a massive overreaction.

[m_sahaf]

It's a repeat complaint from the same person who admits bringing it up before. The way they framed their complaint is, again, snide.

> That’s a long way beyond exasperation, that’s a massive overreaction.

Your reaction to Francis is _the_ overreaction. Francis simply said to OP to put their money where their mouth is. The "slander" comment comes later as a general statement on why this subject has become annoying.

Stop being hung up on Francis' response. The niche feature was discussed at length multiple times. You're welcome to search the web for all the conversations we had on the subject. Caddy has been around for 11 years. We've seen this subject more than you've seen it brought up. Again, OP referenced the discussion on the issue tracker in one of the earlier times they brought it up. They _admit_ it's niche. What's the point of continuously bringing it up?

[francislavoie]

It's the fact they bring it up again when we've made it clear our stance is the problem, not so much the actual words in today's post. It's also off-topic (not relating to project maintainership) and it's on a post I submitted myself to HN.

I know you've already made up your mind, but look at our track record of answering support questions on the forums and tickets on GitHub, and you'll see that the picture you've formed in your mind from this thread is not accurate.

Those comparisons are very straw-man and I won't entertain them. As I've already said, IMO there's more risk in introducing a new security bug in trying to fix this issue than there is leaving it as-is (failing fast and hard).

[JimDabell]

> It's the fact they bring it up again when we've made it clear our stance is the problem

You are still locked into this idea that the sole purpose of bringing it up is for your response. This is an open conversation, not a dialogue between only you and them. It doesn’t matter if you have made your stance clear, them bringing it up gives other people a chance to hear about it and discuss it.

> I know you've already made up your mind, but look at our track record of answering support questions on the forums and tickets on GitHub, and you'll see that the picture you've formed in your mind from this thread is not accurate.

To be clear: my mind was made up that Caddy was a good, reliable choice, and it was your behaviour in this thread that changed my mind, it wasn’t my imagination.

> IMO there's more risk in introducing a new security bug in trying to fix this issue than there is leaving it as-is (failing fast and hard).

I believe that, but I also believe your attitude is a bigger threat to security than either.

[francislavoie]

And you're still locked into this idea that you'll convince me that I shouldn't care, when I've expressed how it makes me feel due to the history. Can you respect that there are topics I'd just like not to be reminded of in a certain way? If it was brought up in a _constructive_ way, I would accept it (i.e. offering help or a solution via a PR with tests). If it was brought up by someone who I didn't specifically interact with negatively on this topic before, I would accept it.

> I believe that, but I also believe your attitude is a bigger threat to security than either.

I can't change your belief, nor do I care to, but I think that's absurd. Show me an actual security threat relating to this and I will address it. But this problem as stated is not one.