7 ms·

No I have denied PRs that _only_ fixed a typo. Edited to be more clear.

jawiggins 3y ago
So you’ve just left the typo in the project? I’ve opened PRs just to fix one or two misplaced characters before. Just trying to do my part to help
- jorvi 3y ago
  Could just fix the typo yourself and reference the PR in your commit then close the PR without pulling. I imagine contributors won’t exactly be happy with that though.
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    Honestly, who cares if the end result is the same? Their forked repo with the patch on still exists, the patch was incorporated in whatever way made sense to the original repo owner. OK, a credit, but really, who cares? People can see what an accepted pull request consisted of, so I'm not sure they're kidding anybody in terms of boosting their reputation with credits for fixing typos. All the same, I'm just glad to see people improve their presentation, especially typos.
hu3 3y ago
I probably submitted more than 10 PRs that only fixed a single word in projects I like. I do that when I see typos in documentation.
- myko 3y ago
  Same, and I appreciate similar contributions to my own projects
superchink 3y ago
I had the same thought. Is fixing typos not contributing? Should I not be submitting PRs to help with documentation/polish/etc? I never even thought that trying to help would be viewed as malicious.
badrequest 3y ago
I issued a PR to correct a typo in a popular ML library just two weeks ago, I am not a bot, this strategy seems flawed.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Any mechanism to combat abuse will have false positives as well.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- irrational 3y ago
  What proof do you have that you are not a bot?
  - dhosek 3y ago
    He passed the Voight-Kampff test.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sieabahlpark 3y ago
  [dead]
Tepix 3y ago
Well, i submitted such a PR today. It hasn't been rejected (just yet).
pcthrowaway 3y ago
I think the people responding are missing the point. I've also submitted PRs that just fixed typos, and I've considered that a legit contribution. But if I maintained a high-profile project right now, I'd at least take pause in thinking some of these accounts could be spam reputation-boosting accounts that only make comments/PRs to lend legitimacy to the account when it ultimately stars some artificially boosted repo. And making it harder to detect star manipulation erodes the signals of trust which have been used on Github, and ultimately can be a security concern (historically I've looked at numbers of contributors, stars, downloads, and issues open/closed as a rough idea of how secure some npm dependency might be.. basically the idea that "more eyeballs" can mean slightly less chance of a massive security issue, especially in security-critical code like oauth libraries) I don't know what the solution is here. Maybe requiring people sign a CLA like some corporate open source projects do is at least enough of a barrier
stronglikedan 3y ago
Denying that PR and fixing it yourself is taking credit for others' work, and leaving it in is no good either. I don't see any upside to rejecting them. I'd be ashamed of myself for that.
hammyhavoc 3y ago
Project maintainers frequently hold themselves back with amateur presentation, and that includes typos. It's hard to take some things seriously if they are failing at English, let alone their programming language of choice. It's sad because there's plenty of amazing open source out there, but the presentation is terribad. IMO, the solution is simple: allow project maintainers to disable pointless metrics that would incentivize the GitHub equivocal to karma farming. I also think the quality of comment on HN suffers for the fact that the karma score is visible metric to the end-user. Reddit particularly. The view count on tweets too.

So you’ve just left the typo in the project? I’ve opened PRs just to fix one or two misplaced characters before. Just trying to do my part to help

jorvi 3y ago
Could just fix the typo yourself and reference the PR in your commit then close the PR without pulling. I imagine contributors won’t exactly be happy with that though.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Honestly, who cares if the end result is the same? Their forked repo with the patch on still exists, the patch was incorporated in whatever way made sense to the original repo owner. OK, a credit, but really, who cares? People can see what an accepted pull request consisted of, so I'm not sure they're kidding anybody in terms of boosting their reputation with credits for fixing typos. All the same, I'm just glad to see people improve their presentation, especially typos.

hu3 3y ago

I probably submitted more than 10 PRs that only fixed a single word in projects I like. I do that when I see typos in documentation.

myko 3y ago
Same, and I appreciate similar contributions to my own projects

superchink 3y ago

I had the same thought. Is fixing typos not contributing? Should I not be submitting PRs to help with documentation/polish/etc? I never even thought that trying to help would be viewed as malicious.

badrequest 3y ago

I issued a PR to correct a typo in a popular ML library just two weeks ago, I am not a bot, this strategy seems flawed.

jacquesm 3y ago
Any mechanism to combat abuse will have false positives as well.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
irrational 3y ago
What proof do you have that you are not a bot?
- dhosek 3y ago
  He passed the Voight-Kampff test.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sieabahlpark 3y ago
[dead]

Tepix 3y ago

Well, i submitted such a PR today. It hasn't been rejected (just yet).

pcthrowaway 3y ago

I think the people responding are missing the point. I've also submitted PRs that just fixed typos, and I've considered that a legit contribution. But if I maintained a high-profile project right now, I'd at least take pause in thinking some of these accounts could be spam reputation-boosting accounts that only make comments/PRs to lend legitimacy to the account when it ultimately stars some artificially boosted repo. And making it harder to detect star manipulation erodes the signals of trust which have been used on Github, and ultimately can be a security concern (historically I've looked at numbers of contributors, stars, downloads, and issues open/closed as a rough idea of how secure some npm dependency might be.. basically the idea that "more eyeballs" can mean slightly less chance of a massive security issue, especially in security-critical code like oauth libraries) I don't know what the solution is here. Maybe requiring people sign a CLA like some corporate open source projects do is at least enough of a barrier

stronglikedan 3y ago

Denying that PR and fixing it yourself is taking credit for others' work, and leaving it in is no good either. I don't see any upside to rejecting them. I'd be ashamed of myself for that.

hammyhavoc 3y ago

Project maintainers frequently hold themselves back with amateur presentation, and that includes typos. It's hard to take some things seriously if they are failing at English, let alone their programming language of choice. It's sad because there's plenty of amazing open source out there, but the presentation is terribad. IMO, the solution is simple: allow project maintainers to disable pointless metrics that would incentivize the GitHub equivocal to karma farming. I also think the quality of comment on HN suffers for the fact that the karma score is visible metric to the end-user. Reddit particularly. The view count on tweets too.