First PDF is the original, second PDF is the unified version, then there's links - 4 others changed, 4 explicitly obsoleted, 12 implicitly obsolete, 707 administrative orders, 12 Constitutional Tribunal rulings, 11 previous + current unified versions, 212 patches, 14 relevant EU directives.
My apologies! I worked on this project a while back and had kept the code repo private because it contained some personal data I hadn't cleaned up. I had this repo just to host the macOS binary. When I shared it I forgot it had no code!
I have now uploaded the entire codebase to the repo! Neither sneaky nor deceiving, just plain old stupidity, I'm afraid.
I’m not sure why they don’t just open the source (are they planning on monetizing it?), but GitHub has a convenient issue tracker that everyone already has a user account for.
No plans on monetizing it! Just made it for fun and have uploaded the full codebase now. I was using that repo for hosting the macOS download and had forgotten to host the codebase on it too! Sorry about that.
I agree. I feel if github was owned/run by people passionate about code and open source software, no code repos be banned, if not just because it's consuming resources contrary to the mission.
It is owned/run by Microsoft. The mission is the big tech mission: usage of any kind regardless of the impact on anything else, and profit.
I had the code in a separate private repo because it had some personal data I hadn't cleaned up. When I shared this repo I forgot it didn't have the code! Sorry about that. A case of Hanlon's Razor and nothing more. I have uploaded the full codebase to the shared repo now.
With all due respect to Dan Luu... the article starts with a quote by the pgrust guy from the cheating debacle covered just two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50205816
She says the full-time member is herself, and looking at her Linkedin (in/elizabethn) she isn't exactly the person who would patch PHP for the two CVEs.
reply