3 ms·

Imagine you ran a personal twitter account where you posted your jokes but allowed people to send theirs via email and occasionally publish them. Would you find

Imagine you ran a personal twitter account where you posted your jokes but allowed people to send theirs via email and occasionally publish them. Would you find inappropriate to tell people "yeah this joke almost kinda works but it's not funny enough for my account maybe send me a better version"?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
It also puts you in that weird area, where if you take the half-finished joke and polish it, then you're stealing and/or ruining their idea. Meanwhile, if you were looking for a long-term joke-writing collaborator, then you want to encourage even the people with enthusiasm but sub-par jokes to try harder in the hope they grow into the role.
- ElCheapo 4y ago
  The code maintainer (or owner) makes the code available to the world without asking for anything in return, but if you send him a patch he is somehow obligated to implement it? (I'm not saying this is what you're implying) Open Source goes both ways: nobody forces you to use some rando's code off of github but also nobody forces said rando to to use some rando^2's patch for his own code
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yeah, nobody is forced to do anything, but humans are weird social creatures and feel pressure to do certain things even when not externally forced. If people were just doing a robotic cost/benefit trade off then this wouldn't really be an issue, instead both sides get a bit emotionally invested in it.
- turtleyacht 4y ago
  If the jokes are kept in GitHub, you can modify the joke and rebase. Include a changelog section in the amended commit. "Original" authorship is retained. When it's merged, the committer is noted in the merge commit. But I think it's harder to determine what has changed between multiple rebases. It rewrites history, as it's said. However, I hear the reflog keeps it somehow... GitHub keeps track of this. If you go to your commits, your own merge commits of joke-polishing would show up alongside your own. It's heartening though that an exchange between maintainer and contributor could be like that of a maintainer and future maintainer.
dschuetz 4y ago
I'm not sure you can compare code commits to jokes (occasionally such is the case), but I wonder what the thought process is when a maintainer decides to do exactly that and declines a fix that fixes a problem wrong.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

It also puts you in that weird area, where if you take the half-finished joke and polish it, then you're stealing and/or ruining their idea. Meanwhile, if you were looking for a long-term joke-writing collaborator, then you want to encourage even the people with enthusiasm but sub-par jokes to try harder in the hope they grow into the role.

ElCheapo 4y ago
The code maintainer (or owner) makes the code available to the world without asking for anything in return, but if you send him a patch he is somehow obligated to implement it? (I'm not saying this is what you're implying) Open Source goes both ways: nobody forces you to use some rando's code off of github but also nobody forces said rando to to use some rando^2's patch for his own code
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yeah, nobody is forced to do anything, but humans are weird social creatures and feel pressure to do certain things even when not externally forced. If people were just doing a robotic cost/benefit trade off then this wouldn't really be an issue, instead both sides get a bit emotionally invested in it.
turtleyacht 4y ago
If the jokes are kept in GitHub, you can modify the joke and rebase. Include a changelog section in the amended commit. "Original" authorship is retained. When it's merged, the committer is noted in the merge commit. But I think it's harder to determine what has changed between multiple rebases. It rewrites history, as it's said. However, I hear the reflog keeps it somehow... GitHub keeps track of this. If you go to your commits, your own merge commits of joke-polishing would show up alongside your own. It's heartening though that an exchange between maintainer and contributor could be like that of a maintainer and future maintainer.

dschuetz 4y ago

I'm not sure you can compare code commits to jokes (occasionally such is the case), but I wonder what the thought process is when a maintainer decides to do exactly that and declines a fix that fixes a problem wrong.