5 ms·

Yeah, I'm confused as to why the author wouldn't make their source code available with a message that says "I am not looking to accept pull requests or help wit

Yeah, I'm confused as to why the author wouldn't make their source code available with a message that says "I am not looking to accept pull requests or help with this project, but I'm providing the code in case it's useful to anyone in their own pursuits." That seems like it would make everyone happy, wouldn't it?

Waterluvian 3y ago
GitHub surely has a way to simply disable both Issues and PRs right? Clone it. Fork it. Star it. That’s it.
- arp242 3y ago
  You can disable issues but not PRs. People faux-disable it by opening a PR with "don't open PRs" or set up a bot to comment on PRs.
- internetter 3y ago
  Haha, you'd think. You can disable issues, but not pull requests, which has been a pain point for the last... forever[0]. Best you can do is setup workflows to automatically close and lock every pull request (and optionally, add an exception for a single pull request that says in all caps "DO NOT OPEN PULL REQUESTS"). It's as painful as it sounds. [0]: https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls
- airtonix 3y ago
  [dead]
- sublinear 3y ago
  You just succintly described what will kill off github eventually
- account42 3y ago
  You can open source something without putting it on GitHub.
arp242 3y ago
You can be open to contributions and help while still wanting to maintain a certain direction for a project (rather than it becoming a democracy, or a "must solve all use cases"-type of project). Actually, I think that's how most projects are run.
- account42 3y ago
  Yes, but that puts the onus on the maintainer to actively reject contributions that they don't like. It doesn't help that often people will implement something without even asking if its right for the direction of the project and then come with the expectation that upstream will accept it. You could say that thats on them for having the wrong expectation but that doesn't change that it isn't fun to tell people "no". Still, forgoing all contributions for that or even keeping the source closed is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even if you don't want any features being contributed at all there is value in accepting patches for bugfixes.
  - bartread 3y ago
    > it isn't fun to tell people "no". It gets even less fun when they won't take no for an answer and want to argue with you about it: it sucks up time and energy you may not want, or even have, to give. It becomes unnecessary noise and distraction, which is a huge problem if your life is already busy.
asdfman123 3y ago
Because this project is about the author and not the selfish people who don’t want to make it about the author
- Kiro 3y ago
  Are you being sarcastic? If I'm making a painting and someone wants to start scribbling on it, am I selfish for not allowing them?
  - asdfman123 3y ago
    I am being sarcastic. I think it’s more nuanced than the author thinks and he’s projecting. Other people have egos but he probably does too for wanting the project to be an extension of himself. It’s okay to want that, but other people aren’t bad and selfish for not conforming to your will. Sometimes you just don’t see things eye to eye and need to move on.
Kiro 3y ago
What are you confused about? Just because people want to help out doesn't mean they have an obligation to make the project open source.
Applejinx 3y ago
Not if the most obvious forks would starve out adoption of the original, more niche project. That would make the original dev unhappy. His stated purpose is for his project to proliferate and teach people to host their own social networks. It's very unlikely that this would compete effectively against larger social networks based on his stuff, that ask less of the user and offer significantly larger networks.

Waterluvian 3y ago

GitHub surely has a way to simply disable both Issues and PRs right? Clone it. Fork it. Star it. That’s it.

arp242 3y ago
You can disable issues but not PRs. People faux-disable it by opening a PR with "don't open PRs" or set up a bot to comment on PRs.
internetter 3y ago
Haha, you'd think. You can disable issues, but not pull requests, which has been a pain point for the last... forever[0]. Best you can do is setup workflows to automatically close and lock every pull request (and optionally, add an exception for a single pull request that says in all caps "DO NOT OPEN PULL REQUESTS"). It's as painful as it sounds. [0]: https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls
airtonix 3y ago
[dead]
sublinear 3y ago
You just succintly described what will kill off github eventually
account42 3y ago
You can open source something without putting it on GitHub.

arp242 3y ago

You can be open to contributions and help while still wanting to maintain a certain direction for a project (rather than it becoming a democracy, or a "must solve all use cases"-type of project). Actually, I think that's how most projects are run.

account42 3y ago
Yes, but that puts the onus on the maintainer to actively reject contributions that they don't like. It doesn't help that often people will implement something without even asking if its right for the direction of the project and then come with the expectation that upstream will accept it. You could say that thats on them for having the wrong expectation but that doesn't change that it isn't fun to tell people "no". Still, forgoing all contributions for that or even keeping the source closed is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even if you don't want any features being contributed at all there is value in accepting patches for bugfixes.
- bartread 3y ago
  > it isn't fun to tell people "no". It gets even less fun when they won't take no for an answer and want to argue with you about it: it sucks up time and energy you may not want, or even have, to give. It becomes unnecessary noise and distraction, which is a huge problem if your life is already busy.

asdfman123 3y ago

Because this project is about the author and not the selfish people who don’t want to make it about the author

Kiro 3y ago
Are you being sarcastic? If I'm making a painting and someone wants to start scribbling on it, am I selfish for not allowing them?
- asdfman123 3y ago
  I am being sarcastic. I think it’s more nuanced than the author thinks and he’s projecting. Other people have egos but he probably does too for wanting the project to be an extension of himself. It’s okay to want that, but other people aren’t bad and selfish for not conforming to your will. Sometimes you just don’t see things eye to eye and need to move on.

Kiro 3y ago

What are you confused about? Just because people want to help out doesn't mean they have an obligation to make the project open source.

Applejinx 3y ago

Not if the most obvious forks would starve out adoption of the original, more niche project. That would make the original dev unhappy. His stated purpose is for his project to proliferate and teach people to host their own social networks. It's very unlikely that this would compete effectively against larger social networks based on his stuff, that ask less of the user and offer significantly larger networks.