No, they were never one of mold's goals. You don't get to assign solutions to people _and then blame them_. Hyrum's Law being a load bearing part of your infrastructure isn't Mold's problem.

▲

jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-]

I can't really agree with that. If you ship your linker with a disclaimer saying 'don't use this for early stage stuff, one day we might decide to rewrite the whole codebase in a language that won't be available early enough' then you'd have a point. But if you didn't that is precisely the kind of use case where mold shines, and so inevitably it will be adopted. Your downstream should be precious. At a minimum you should communicate such intentions, do so timely and hear what others have to say, even if afterwards you decide to push on.

	▲	ndiddy 35 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Pretty much every piece of open source software ships with a legal document saying that the software is provided as-is without any warranty or guarantee of functionality (i.e. https://github.com/rui314/mold/blob/main/LICENSE ). Unless I had a support agreement with the maintainers that superseded that document, I would not expect any special treatment from upstream. Personally, whenever I add a new dependency, I do it with the knowledge that I may have to either replace it or take on maintenance myself in the future.
	▲	someonebaggy 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I actually made a Linux distribution that relies on this being your latest comment, since you didn't say this wouldn't always be your latest comment. If you post any newer ones, it will break.
	▲	embedding-shape 28 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Your downstream should be precious. Yeah, for stuff we wanna rely on, this should ideally be the default. I'd go one step further and say no breaking changes past 1.0.0 at all. Instead people should favor creating entirely new projects (forks or not) and jump over to those, leaving the old one behind, if they want to do massive changes to something. Of course, no one would be forced to do this, but it feels like if more did this, long-term supporting stuff that depends on those things would be a lot easier, if things could just be instead of changing under our feet all the time. Thank god for Nix and NixOS, even with their warts.
	▲	jstarks an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What? Why would mold be particularly valuable for early stage compilation, to the point that you’d explicitly cater to that user base?
	▲	well_ackshually 31 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Your downstream should be precious Is my downstream paying me for the maintenance ? If not, downstream may maintain mold2 themselves forever because their _extremely specific_ use case is neither a promise nor a valuable thing for mold to maintain. Debian understood this a while ago and isn't whining when they have to maintain their own fork. Maintainers maintain. If enough downstreamers are unhappy about choices, they are also welcome to fork, until the base project is abandoned. Or they realize their usecases are extremely narrow. (In addition, it's an extremely hypocritical and purist demand, because I am pretty certain that their distribution has, at some point, an arbitrary executable to make a compiler from. So they're probably okay with blobs, just not that one in particular.)