HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
reactiveui
splat
C#2013–2021
reactiveui / splat

splat

Cross-platform building blocks for .NET applications. Provides service location and dependency resolution, logging, platform-neutral images, colours and geometry, and unit test and design mode detection.

Creative & MediaTesting & QualityObservability
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
16Distinct people
17Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
991GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Cross-platform building blocks for .NET applications. Provides service location and dependency resolution, logging, platform-neutral images, colours and geometry, and unit test and design mode detection.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year17 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-07-02 19:41:43 UTC to 2021-10-08 03:43:46 UTC.

0510152013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20132014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20172018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 0 submissions, 15 comments2021

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15015

What Hacker News says

17 sources
Permit·Oct 8, 2021
Many projects joined the .NET Foundation after it was created. It didn't really do anything for them (I think they basically sponsor meetups), but it wasn't harming anyone either. The .NET Foundation asked for owner access on the author's repository (for a CLA bot). The author declined and a workaround was organized. Years later the .NET Foundation asked for "owner access" on the author's repository (to allow them enforce Code of Conduct across all repositories). The author declined. The CLA bot stopped working. The author was told it would work if he gave it owner access. The author was annoyed because they previously had a workaround. They gave in and gave @dnfadmin owner access (temporarily, it was later revoked after the CLA bot was set up, thanks /u/ethbr0 for the correction). Some time later the author realized that the project had
Read the rest
now been silently moved to GitHub Enterprise (likely in the short window @dnfadmin had owner access). The author states that projects in GitHub Enterprise can be entirely controlled by the owner of the account (the .NET Foundation). This transfer happened silently. Independently, this happened to another project (who had coincidentally had an issue with a Microsoft employee and former contributor force a pull-request into their project: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778). The change itself seems innocuous, but the approach bothered people. People are upset because of how tone-deaf all of this is. They would like the .NET Foundation to stop trying to gain complete control over the member projects. They would especially like for their projects not to have their ownership changed silently. Edit: For the record, I do not believe this is part of some embrace, extend, extinguish plan on behalf of Microsoft. I think these accusations actually cheapen what has happened here. I suspect this was more of a "can we make this process easier and more convenient for the .NET Foundation"-type thing. The people involved with this will have to do some soul searching. The .NET Foundation should operate in service of its member projects, not the other way around.
In How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha
jsiepkes·Oct 7, 2021
> I am not versed in all the details here You should probably read the conversation in the PR: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 > there is a dire need for professional communications training among these programmers. Maybe, but probably not why you think. Once you've read the PR's conversation you'll see this isn't about someone just merging a PR which wasn't approved. This about someone submitting a PR, a maintainer asking for discussion before merging it, ignoring the maintainer and just merge the PR, the maintainer asking why it wasn't discussed and then making a snide remark to the maintainer. So I agree that the "Sorry for merging a PR" isn't going to cut it here. The merging of the PR was the least of the problem. It's a hollow corporate-style apology where someone is allowed to be called out for. It's like saying: "Sorr
Read the rest
y I hurt your toe" after you pushed someone of a cliff.
In I'm sorry
knorker·Oct 7, 2021
"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened (https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology attempt made it worse. It starts off with a dishonest apology, and then goes into a big policy and contract debate. Why would you conflate the two? Whatever point you're then trying to make about policy and ownership is tainted by both the personal misstep (I call it that unsarcastically) and by the insincere apology. It's needlessly ineffective. 1. It makes your apology sound like "I'm sorry, but I'm the dictator here" 2. It star
Read the rest
ts you off from a position of "I was wrong, admit I was wrong, but here's how actually I'm right" It's going to be hard convincing anyone if you start from a position of being wrong. And not just wrong but also really rude. It seems to me that it would be much more effective to just apologize for the obvious process mis-step and arrogant rudeness (it happens to the best of us), and let that sink in. And then start a new conversation about policy. Whoever raises "yeah, well weren't you the one who went around PR policies?" in that thread will be the unproductive one, and it won't go anywhere. As-is the policy points can't be taken at face value.
In I'm sorry
gpm·Oct 6, 2021
> My understanding is that she did a PR, quickly merged it, and people only noticed after it had already happened. Nobody interjected to complain; there wasn't really time to do so. The PR is here, it was explicitly rejected (with two comments) and closed before she merged it https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778
In I'm sorry

Showing the 15 most recent of 17 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.