That's not what the post said at all. They said they made a judgment error -- the code was deleted on purpose, but the decision to delete the code was a "mistake" (in this case, a regrettable choice, not an "accident").
From the post:
> "With the runway getting short for the .NET 6 release and Visual Studio 2022, we chose to focus on bringing Hot Reload to VS2022 first. We made a mistake in executing on this plan in the way it was carried out. In our effort to scope, we inadvertently ended up deleting the source code instead of just not invoking that code path."
This explanation is plausible, but https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/pull/22217 was locked from creation, and I interpret this as a sign of wanting to avoid criticism for an unpopular decision.
It’s also entirely possible that it was locked to prevent the inevitable spam of the same comments. When GitHub issues go viral (relatively speaking) through here and Reddit, they tend to get spammed with dozens or even hundreds of comments that don’t add to the discussion.
Everyone commenting “Microsoft, why? You suck!” doesn’t add to the discussion.
> “In our effort to scope, we inadvertently ended up deleting the source code instead of just not invoking that code path."
I’m not sure the original blog post announcing the drop of this feature was completely transparent, and similarly I’m not sure that this retraction post is either. There’s too much additional context that points to a slightly different explanation.
7 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 22.9 ms ] threadFrom the post:
> "With the runway getting short for the .NET 6 release and Visual Studio 2022, we chose to focus on bringing Hot Reload to VS2022 first. We made a mistake in executing on this plan in the way it was carried out. In our effort to scope, we inadvertently ended up deleting the source code instead of just not invoking that code path."
Everyone commenting “Microsoft, why? You suck!” doesn’t add to the discussion.
> “In our effort to scope, we inadvertently ended up deleting the source code instead of just not invoking that code path."
I’m not sure the original blog post announcing the drop of this feature was completely transparent, and similarly I’m not sure that this retraction post is either. There’s too much additional context that points to a slightly different explanation.
But at least they back tracked. That’s a win.