It's easy to get any bug fix you want: pay for them.
If you think loading your expectations on to an unpaid volunteer and then harassing them over it will work out, hopefully this moment is a good learning experience for you.
(Unfortunately, I can see from reading the comments that not everyone is getting it.)
Perhaps someone should create an OSS contributor agreement where contributors explicitly agree to work long hours, for free, in perpetuity, prioritizing issues based on reddit heat, and see how many developers agree to those conditions. Those are the expectations that appear to have driven this developer to quit their project.
BTW, for those that don't know: acting on bug reports and accepting pull requests is often a lot of work in its own right. Bug reports are often vague, incomplete, contain incorrect assertions and assumption, lack clear steps to reproduce or even a clear description of what happened vs what was expected. It takes time a effort to clarify these things. Even then you may need to, e.g., build an environment to reproduce or correct the issue. Changes from developers that aren't highly experienced with the project typically have gaps, new bugs, misunderstand requirements, don't build, ignore style conventions, lack unit tests, and have various other issue that have to be ironed out before the change can be accepted. It's all a lot of work.
I imagine GitHub could make a reasonable amount of money if they implemented a bounty system, taking a little off the top for each bounty.
Each issue could have a donate button. The bounty would be split to the authors that contributed, with some remainder left for unfinished work (documentation, unit tests, etc).
To settle how the bounty is split for multiple authors, they could go through an anonymous round of "bids" to propose splits, with the bounty locked until they agreed. Maybe the maintainer/reporter able to settle disagreements by choosing a split ratio that lain somewhere between the range of those bid on.
I want to preface my comment with "I agree with you"
However, in this case patches and reproductions were submitted and rejected as "boring". Whether the author really meant to use the word "boring" is neither here nor there, the result was that the fix was ignored, even though that's how open source works!
I've watched from the sidelines with no skin in the game (I use Rocket) and my conclusion from all of this is that the maintainer should have created an actix committee or group of maintainers to help shield from the inevitable bugs and issues that crop up. If the OG author wanted to step back to take a break from all of this, then fine, the rest of the group can continue to churn and work.
The original article that called out the behavior also called out other incredibly popular crates, like reqwests, for their underlying HTTP stack, yet there's not a shitstorm about those libraries. The obvious difference that I can see is the maintainer response to said criticisms.
EDIT: I also want to make clear that I hated the comment about never writing rust again. I'm not condoning that behavior at all
I think you're still heaping unwarrented expectations on the developer.
E.g, "...that's how open source works!"
That's your opinion, but what obligates the developer to adhere to this?
If the question is, was this a professionally run OSS project I would say, certainly not, and I assume almost everyone would agree. But so what? Why should a maintainer be expected to run an OSS project to a certain level of responsiveness or spin up a governance mechanism if they can't do it on their own?
> The obvious difference that I can see is the maintainer response to said criticisms.
I would suggest that reddit mobs are almost entirely capricious, random, and irrational.
If my comment implied that there was some sort of expectation then I think there was a miscommunication. There's no obligation for anyone to do anything, ever, but that's a pretty useless metric to mark against IMO.
Was this a professional project? Absolutely not. But was this a personal project? I would also say categorically "no", since it wasn't scoped under his personal github profile until recently. I'm very saddened to see something that could have been solely community maintained be revoked instead of there existing a potential mitigation plan in place (for example in the form of a foundation or Org) for situations like this, especially since this has happened twice before and it's sadly caused burnout for the main developer. Again, no obligation to do this but why can't I say "man, that's true that he could follow these actions but that's also shitty" at the same time?
If you think loading your expectations on to an unpaid volunteer and then harassing them over it will work out, hopefully this moment is a good learning experience for you.
(Unfortunately, I can see from reading the comments that not everyone is getting it.)
Perhaps someone should create an OSS contributor agreement where contributors explicitly agree to work long hours, for free, in perpetuity, prioritizing issues based on reddit heat, and see how many developers agree to those conditions. Those are the expectations that appear to have driven this developer to quit their project.
BTW, for those that don't know: acting on bug reports and accepting pull requests is often a lot of work in its own right. Bug reports are often vague, incomplete, contain incorrect assertions and assumption, lack clear steps to reproduce or even a clear description of what happened vs what was expected. It takes time a effort to clarify these things. Even then you may need to, e.g., build an environment to reproduce or correct the issue. Changes from developers that aren't highly experienced with the project typically have gaps, new bugs, misunderstand requirements, don't build, ignore style conventions, lack unit tests, and have various other issue that have to be ironed out before the change can be accepted. It's all a lot of work.