Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
-
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
I'm assuming this is some sort of canary message to indicate that the code base has been compromised, the author can't talk about it, and everyone should immediately stop using the service. Surely no-one would be unwise enough to commit this otherwise?
Even ignoring the huge red LLM flag, a 25kLOC delta in a single PR should be cause for instant rejection as there's no way to fully understand or test it, let alone in 2-3 weeks.
Not to pick at nits, but it would be VERY different if it was 1k lines added and 24k lines removed. There's something extremely satisfying about removing 10k+ lines of unnecessary code.
Sure, that would be a little different, but unless you could make a convincing argument, backed up with a solid set of unit tests, at the least, as to why and how you were able to remove that much code whilst only adding a comparatively small amount, I'd still be inclined to reject it and ask for it to be broken down into smaller units.
Now, that explaination might be something along the lines of it being dead code that is not called from anywhere, or even that it was a patched version of an upstream library, and the patch is now included in that upstream, in which case, fair enough, good work, and thanks very much. As a rewrite or refactor though, it's too big to sensibly review and needs breaking down into separate features.
Absolutely, the author needs to be able to reason about their changes, no matter what. However, the reason why I think the two situations are fundamentally different, though, is that it's a lot easier to validate the existence of features than it is the non-existence of bugs or malicious behavior. The biggest risk to removing code is breaking preexisting features, whereas the biggest risk to adding code is introducing malicious behavior.