good: Add foo interface.

Another commit style is summarizing what a commit does. In this case it would be someting like:

Adds foo interface.

I think this style is more in line with auditing code.

Ok.

On all the agile projects I’ve worked on, the teams have been very reluctant to make a specification in place before starting development.

I don't think this is an Agile thing, at all. I mean, look at what Agile's main trait: multiple iterations with acceptance testing and product&design reviews. At each iteration there is planning. At each planning session you review/create tickets tracking goals and tasks. This makes it abundantly clear that Agile is based in your ability to plan for the long term but break/adapt progress into multiple short-term plans.

${CORPORATION} has profited off of Redis without giving much back (...)

I don't understand this blend of comment.

If you purposely release your work as something anyone in the world is free to use and change to adapt to their own personal needs without any expectation of retribution or compensation, why are you complaining that people are using your work without any retribution or compensation?

More to the point, why are you singling out specific adopters while leaving out the bulk of your community?

It makes absolutely no sense at all.

For those who want a ready-made set of .gitattribute files you can simply drop on your project, here's this fancy GitHub link.

https://github.com/gitattributes/gitattributes

Once you add a .gitattributes file to your project, make sure you push a commit that re-normalizes all relevant files:

git rm --cached -r .
git reset --hard

Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep

So Microsoft has access to Firefox's source code. So what? Isn't the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?

Objective-C and Objective-C++ are an abomination. Extending languages with other language constructs is ok, I guess, but I find Apple's extremely poor documentation to worsen a situation that's already quite bad.

I get it that the project isn't getting work done on features, but it bothers me how the author tried to criticize basic code quality improvements such as fixing typos. I don't know if the author is an active contributor to the project, but I think he shouldn't really be criticizing the ones that actually contribute, wether their contributions are big or small.

If GitHub changes terms of use to pay for basic stuff, or starts breaking compatibility or adding egregious bugs, I would start looking for alternatives.

A while ago I had all my personal projects on GitLab. I was a GitLab fanboy and advocated it everywhere to the point I convinced the project manager of a previous job to migrate the team's projects to it and pay for GitLab ultimate. Without going into details, that goodwill ended the moment I stumbled upon a regression introduced by GitLab which affected my personal projects, and their customer support essentially said the issue was won't fix but it was fixed in premium customers. I simply unblocked myself by moving all projects to GitHub, disabled GitLab CICD and shut down my GitLab runners, and onboarded onto a mix of GitHub Actions and CircleCI. I could still stick with GitLab, but why bother?

I would do the same to GitHub if I experienced anything remotely similar.

Duplicate code can be a code smell, but it's far better to have the same function definition or code block appear twice in the code than extracting a function that tightly couples two components that should not be coupled at all.

See Write Everything Twice (WET) principle.

I would think you would try to perfect what you have instead of making new ones all the time.

Perfecting what you have often leads to a completely different language. See C vs C with classes which ended up being C++.

There is absolutely no problem with creating new languages. These are often designed with specific features in mind, and the success cases often offer features that are in high demand. Take for instance node.js, and how its event loop makes it a near ideal language for network-heavy applications that run on a single thread.

I think there's context missing from that story. Diagrams do not trigger disgust. At best, making superfluous and time-wasting demands in the context of trivial tasks that add nothing of value and achieve nothing but wasting time and adding overhead can often lead managers to frown upon them.