I've read their reports before. When there's not enough information to reproduce, they do a good job of asking for more information first, and I've never seen a reasonable good-faith report elicit anything overt.

If you failed to give them proper reproduction information when asked, then yeah, you were wasting their time and they should rightfully close your issue.

I've never seen anyone on the curl team undeservedly "lambast" someone, and for a project that has a quite good reputation, I think the burden of proof is on you. Can you link to these supposedly terrifying comments?

▲

msephton 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It says in the curl file that they will ridicule time-wasters in public and here is one pression confirming that it happened to them, yet somehow that's not enough? Come on.

▲

latexr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you follow cURL’s development, what you’ll see is the main contributors tend to be extremely patient, helpful, and thankful of contributions. Sometimes too patient. If you look at the HackerOne slop reports cURL got, you’ll see Daniel accommodating people outright wasting their time.

So if you follow what’s been happening, you know the types of reports this message is talking about. What they consider time-wasters are slop reports where the reporter didn’t do any effort to even test the “bug” and then keeps pasting whatever the LLM says in replies and lying about using them.

In other words, for a legitimate report it’s hard to believe that was the reaction. I would expect them to be patient with a human contributor which really put in the work. It’s particularly hard to believe the maintainers would even waste their time to lambast someone on Reddit. Doesn’t seem like their style.

Maybe the person in this thread is exaggerating, maybe they misinterpreted it, or maybe it did happen. But it seems so out-of-character that some proof would be warranted, especially since it’s a single report.

▲

nullc 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When people don't provide a citation online when discussing some specific instance like this-- which could be provided with a couple clicks and would radically improve their argument a reasonable assumption is that the citation would undermine their argument.

▲

TingPing 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We don’t need anecdotes, every single bug is public. Just looking now I see respectful responses to genuine reports. This document is clearly in response to AI slop and spam.

	▲	perching_aix 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I skimmed the "slop" collection they maintain that was posted here yesterday, and even under those HackerOne submissions, Daniel was perfectly reasonable and respectful. It is entirely possible I merely chanced upon his highlights, but this announcement to me really just signifies a final straw breaking than anything else. His historical conduct is all public and speaks for itself. I wish I had the patience and perseverance he does, and I wish he didn't need it.