There's more than one issue here, and you're conflating them. IF the logging issue was non-public and non-resolved at the time I wanted to publish my article, I'd probably have given them longer.
> Why would they request an extension
If they thought 1.5 working days wasn't enough to provide GPL sources, for whatever reason. I don't see how you can argue that 1.5 days is simultaneously too short, and not in need of an extension.
Your outrage sounds disingenuous. 1.5 days is definitely not a reasonable timeframe for a response to a partially resolved issue. What is 1.5 days in this context? Friday afternoon and Monday? Do you and their security engineers even live in the same time zone?
I've read through these comment chains a few times, but I'm having a really hard time finding the "outrage", disingenuous or otherwise. Can you quote the part of the comment that displayed outrage?
>Do you and their security engineers even live in the same time zone?
Reading through this thread, you can find where the OP says that the time zones were accounted for.
I know nothing about the product they are selling. As an engineer, I think writing a critical blog post after giving just a 1.5 day notice is bad behavior.
There's more than one issue here, and you're conflating them. IF the logging issue was non-public and non-resolved at the time I wanted to publish my article, I'd probably have given them longer.
> Why would they request an extension
If they thought 1.5 working days wasn't enough to provide GPL sources, for whatever reason. I don't see how you can argue that 1.5 days is simultaneously too short, and not in need of an extension.