alt Hacker NewsThe contrast between the attitude here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46461860 and in this story is a bit wacky to me.
Replies
Not really? In your link TFAA was saying they were convinced an issue existed but the number of impacted users was limited, no maintainer experienced the issue, and they had no reproducer. As of yesterday TFAA still had no working reproducer: https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/9962#disc...
In the meantime they apparently got one (edit: per their sibling comment they got it yesterday evening) and were finally able to figure out the issue.
edit: https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/discussions/10244 is where it was cracked.
I think there's only a perceptible "attitude" difference if you are fired up by the fact that they are conservative about using the "issues" tab.
Super weird take. Why treat the guy as if he’s a bad actor? All of the public evidence shows good faith on this issue and on the project in general. We’ve also had a clear explanation of why discussion precedes issue creation.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Only contrast I see is that he thought it was much more of a corner case which turned out to be not that true anymore since everyone started using claude code.
Presumably that discussion is the reason this was fixed. Very bizarre bug tracking policy IMO.
What contrast? I stand by what I said there. I just re-read every point and I would say the same thing today and I don't think my blog post contradicts any of that?
A user came along and provided a reliable reproduction for me (last night) that allowed me to find and fix the issue. Simultaneously they found the same thing and produced a similar fix, which also helped validate both our approaches. So, we were able to move forward. I said in the linked comment that I believed the leak existed, just couldn't find it.
It also was fairly limited in impact. As far as Ghostty bugs go, the number of upvotes the bug report had (9) is very small. The "largest" in the title is with regards to the size of the leak in bytes, not the size of the leak in terms of reach.
As extra data to support this, this bug has existed for at least 3 years (since the introduction of this data structure in Ghostty during the private beta). The first time I even heard about it in a way where I can confidently say it was this was maybe 3 or 4 months ago. It was extremely rare. I think the recent rise in popularity of Claude Code in particular was bringing this to the surface more often, but never to the point it rose to a massively reported issue.