Thanks for the response. I knew of this talk, and had delved into the code base years ago. I did not want to deal with that specific issue in the article because it diverted from the main discussion. My assumption this was a known aspect of the code base, from that talk to the security review Kubernetes received. Obviously it not a known, when I roll out an update to the webpage I will link to that fosdem talk.
Even then there's arguably a stark contrast between
>The clusterfuck hidden in the Kubernetes code base and the brilliant refactoring techniques developed to fix it
and saying
>[...] forking a large code base, especially one as shit as Kubernetes, and still getting community support can be daunting without some sort of titanic change in the market.
especially since the former talks about techniques that fixed the "clusterfuck".
I know you didn't bring that talk into the discussion, however you didn't cite any sources at all. From my POV simply stating that the Kubernetes code base is "shit" without extending on it comes off as anything but neutral and fair.
If you want to sound reasonable, I would either make clear that that sentiment is your personal opinion and/or comes from your experience, or at least cite some sources.
Yeh I think I understand what you mean. The context is different when somebody says it as the perspective of a contributor. Then just a sideline comment without a 1 hour talk of context to contextualize the remark
