One of the things I find so disappointing about Kelley's behavior here is that he falsely accused Jarred Sumner of lying about fuzzing Bun, and then when Sumner showed evidence[0] that they've been fuzzing Bun for months, Kelley just silently edited his post[1] to walk back the accusation and never apologized or admitted he was wrong.

I commented on Mastodon[2] to point out to Kelley that it's dishonest to silently remove the accusation, as so many people were already talking about it, and it confuses the conversation if Kelley retroactively edits it, and he replied[3]:

> the false claim is in the bun blog post not mine. I only changed the text because it's easy to lazily argue against it. Please read more carefully. They are the ones being deceitful not me.

Loris Cro, Zig's VP of Community, gave a slightly clearer response[4]:

> Jarred's post has a section about what they "were already doing" to maintain their Zig codebase, which includes "24/7 fuzzing", which will make the average reader assume that the codebase has been fuzzed thoroughly, while in reality it has been for, what, 2 months before the rewrite?

Even then, I find it so bizarre that Loris thinks that if someone says, "We've been fuzzing Bun," and shows evidence of months of fuzzing, then that person is lying because "We've been fuzzing Bun" somehow implies something longer than two months.

The duration is irrelevant. If you say you've been fuzzing it and you've fixed bugs that your fuzzer found, then clearly you're fuzzing. The Zig team doesn't get to arbitrarily move the goalposts of what "fuzzing" means.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48845652

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48854921

[2] https://m.mtlynch.io/@michael/116896188093796421

[3] https://mastodon.social/@andrewrk/116897155344411469

[4] https://hachyderm.io/@kristoff/116898483283387067

▲

mi_lk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> The post claims they were fuzzing their Zig code, while during our calls the whole Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything

If you read the post again this sentence is not removed and Sumner did not refute that

	▲	mtlynch 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, that part is not in dispute. If Sumner says today, "We do X," then Kelley can say, "Nine months ago, Sumner did not do X," and both can be correct. What Kelley can't do is say, "It's an outright fabrication that Sumner does X today," based on an observation from nine months ago.