11 ms·
Exactly, I think people misunderstand what open source means. Open source doesn't mean that you need to provide hours of free support to someone who couldn't e
by serial_dev 6y ago
Exactly, I think people misunderstand what open source means.
Open source doesn't mean that you need to provide hours of free support to someone who couldn't even bother to write a proper issue description. For a matter of fact, you don't even need to provide free support to anyone, no matter how nice they are and no matter how well they written the issue You can help them, but you don't have to.
You also don't need to accept pull requests: if you think that the feature doesn't make sense or the code quality is terrible, or it's just not important to you, you don't need to accept pull requests.
You also don't need to bend over backwards to maintain a stabile API.
It makes your life easier if you communicate this in the README of the package, tell people that it's the early days of the product, you develop in the open, but you aren't going to abide by other people's unrealistic expectations about your open source work.
- Qwertious 6y ago>Exactly, I think people misunderstand what open source means. "Misunderstand" implies there's some authoritative definition on "open source" means here. I remember people considering Dasura "not open source" even though it was GPLv2, simply because they didn't accept patches and only threw code over the wall. To a lot of people, open source means engaging on Github. You can say "they're wrong", but that's just disagreement.
- ipaddr 6y agoI find just throwing code into github is my perfect level of open sourcing. It's public and I can pull the code into any project. No pesky user requests or stars. Accepting pull requests on smaller projects seems strange. If I wrote this why do I want someone else sharing credit.