It’s not really something developers want to think about very much so they often just use the default.

Do you think it was intentional ideological decision by the Rust developers or some other contributors/interests to make permissive the default? Or a random decision that has ended up being consequential because of the popularity of Rust?

I have noticed for a long time that github promotes MIT license. It lets you use any, of course, but puts a real positive shine on MIT. My perception is that this is a purposeful intervention by MS into FLOSS to promote MIT.

I do not program. So maybe trying to understand all this is over my head. wikipedia describes

A static library or statically linked library contains functions and data that can be included in a consuming computer program at build-time such that the library does not need to be accessible in a separate file at run-time.

I thought that was the idea of binaries in general. In the Arch repos there are many packages appended with -bin. (The Arch repos also contain items of various licenses including proprietary.) Lots of FLOSS packages make a binary available by direct download from their website. Without too much detail, is there something special about Rust? Or maybe I misunderstand the concept of a binary release.

library code licensed under it must be able to be replaced.

Does this mean you need to be able to make a reproducible build? Or need to be able to swap code for something else? Wouldn't that inherently break a program?

Yes you are correct I mis-used the term. I mean copyleft. So I fixed the post. :)

soo you are saying people are tricked into it?

Over the years, forums did not really get smaller, so much as the rest of the internet just got bigger.

matrix isn't a forum. it's a chat.

pipeline to fascism

I assume they are just harvesting email addresses unless a very small site

There are so many niche forums.

Here's one I found a while ago when I was looking at repairing an old electric fan I found: Antique Fan Collector's Forum.

In the way that people would always add "reddit" to their searches, try just adding "forum".

I felt the same way every time I tried to use Twitter as I feel every time I try to use Mastodon. It's either way too much or way too little. I prefer everything about the reddit/lemmy/threadiverse style.

How would we even be having this conversation on microblogging? A bunch of reposts, with or without comments, disconnected from each other... So much nicer to have a "subject" line and a page where every relevant comment is presented.

Can you imagine if the threadiverse was sorted that way? It would be insane and essentially unusable at scale

On lemmy there is a way to basically do this by toggling the filters at the top of the top of the front page. You can see how this looks form my instance: https://programming.dev/?dataType=Comment&listingType=All&sort=New

I've always assumed nobody every uses it like that. I guess if you were bored you might get lucky and see something that interested you, at least if it was limited to Local and you were on a good instance.

but what I would do is add a comment in the code to specify the change and link to your documentation file for more details (if needed).

However, I have never seen any project doing it like that (for a good reason probably?).

I think what happens to me is that I completely lack discipline about structure and will often decide to re-organize things. So then I will tidy the documentation section which breaks links and nothing can be found. I would only be able to behave differently if I was very confident about what I will do and how I will do it from the outset; otherwise it is unavoidable part of learning and changing ideas through the life of a project.

One slightly more stable system I've had for my own code is to use the Issues tracker as a sort of documentation storage system. Open an Issue against the repo for everything I did, keep all notes in the Issue, and link to that by number like #1, which all the forges understand as special notation so it gets picked up in useful ways in terms of references.

I don't do this too often because it's a mess if anyone else ever wanted to utilize the Issue tracker and not what the Issues are for. Not to mention embarrassing. But I've resorted to it in situations where I had a huge amount of learning to do. With the idea that potentially could move the actual end project to a separate, cleaner repo once it was presentable, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I will say that despite being an abuse of the Issues tracker it has stood the test of time and I can go back to stuff I was working on years ago and find information stored in this way.

But with a regular fork that is made on the same platform as the original (eg forking a github repo to another github repo), you don't actually get an Issues tracker; only the upstream can have Issues. So it's a bit moot.

It’s probably not what you’re looking for but maybe this can give you any idea or see if this could fit your workflow?

Thanks for sharing. :) I hope you don't mind me saying this but it's nice to see commits like "Just a commit test". I also have these as part of learning git.

I didn't know we could use callouts like this in codeberg MD. Cool!

> [!CAUTION]  
> Sometimes...