3 ms·
Maybe it's easy to feel it's disrespectful because they've made social networks out of contributing to repositories. Accreditation for the modification of pett
by gxnxcxcx 5y ago
Maybe it's easy to feel it's disrespectful because they've made social networks out of contributing to repositories.
Accreditation for the modification of petty and trivial issues is a nice and decent gesture, but overall unworthy of a paper trail binding me to any random none-of-my-business project for such a drive-by PR.
Personally, I would feel more comfortable sending that kind of inane PRs if the parent's way of merging was the standard one, but I know it isn't and therefore opt to keep separate accounts to compartmentalize (which unfortunately increases friction to such contributions).
- theli0nheart 5y ago> Accreditation for the modification of petty and trivial issues is a nice and decent gesture, but overall unworthy of a paper trail binding me to any random none-of-my-business project for such a drive-by PR. I don't know about others, but before investing significant time in a project, my first action will be to read through the documentation, then the code (and accompanying comments), and then I'll make minor fixes along the way. After this, I'll submit a PR with my changes. If a maintainer were to close my patch and then proceed to commit the exact same changes under their own name, I'd never contribute, use, or improve that project again. Why would I waste my time? That kind of behavior displays an immense lack of respect for contributors.
- da39a3ee 5y agoI was referring to a PR which literally changed a single letter :) Not a meaningful piece of proof-reading work.