I feel like some day sociologists and historians will write of this era, and I hope details like this are remembered. It says something about how fully we live technological lives now, that a person might make multiple commits to a suicide note.
In fact, he might have made many commits and then used rebase to erase them.
I know he did the groundwork for Git at least, you can see his own commits in the history of https://github.com/git/git; that was 14 years ago by now though, according to that.
Trivia: Andrew Tridgell's techniques here catalyzed the creation of git. He applied them to reverse-engineer parts of the Bitkeeper protocol, a proprietary version control system then hosting the linux kernel. Bitkeeper CEO Larry McVoy revoked linux's license to use BK, Linus went off and wrote a replacement, and the rest is history.
I'd be interested to see that repo since one of the commits to Automatic's github is Anlatan's code while a second commit changes function names and tweaks the code slightly in an apparent effort to disguise it's origin. Most of the discussion about this has been on 4chan where the amounts of misinformation has been staggering before it pretty much devolved into "it doesn't matter if their code was taken, it should have been open source anyway".
Before I checked what it was, I checked the profile of the person behind it and saw that he had contributed to open source code for more than a year. I thought that was very cool and noble and continued to read the readme of the repository and found out that everything about the person's history is fake
So if your purpose was to make people believe that you're a good contributor and then realise you're just a liar who fake his contributions, you've done the right thing!
just a note: the owner (?) of the project has gone on some sort of archiving spree, and has hacked (?) the discord and github accounts of the real owner...
This does not sound plausible, more like the work of an Internet troll. The user's GitHub handle translates as "Fuck you all, damn it!". When asked to provide evidence, he comes with excuses in the linked thread. He has filed some issues before with the same project, some of which got closed as dupes. My take is he was dissatisfied with the response from the GitHub community and came up with this story to discredit the project.
I feel this description is Linus backtracking, where the original target of the "git" label was in fact Andrew Tridgell, who was at the center of the Linux/bitkeeper reverse engineering drama [0].
reply