3 ms·

Not to be mean, just to provide a different perspective: having an open source repo doesn't automatically mean I want to deal with every pull request in a timel

Not to be mean, just to provide a different perspective: having an open source repo doesn't automatically mean I want to deal with every pull request in a timely manner, merge docs cleanups that I don't even like, and especially reviewing and merging features that I don't want. It's true for personal and probably for professional projects, too. Open source means what's in the license, everything else is just us setting expectations for others that they don't want to our can't meet. For example, I make my projects open source because I don't care if anyone else uses my code, so why not.

righthand 2y ago
Okay well I never indicated any sort of urgency for my contributions, just that they be considered at all, not ignored then reimplemented because the maintainer has trust issues. Projects I have contributed to in the past aren’t personal projects. They are public facing software that is expecting to be used by the public. The first one I mentioned was a UI library that made me sign a contributors agreement, others have been desktop applications and desktop vpn management code. If you have no intent of accepting contributions you should put that in your README.md or CONTRIBUTING.md. Or even indicate the frequency at which you’re able to consider contributions.
- m000 2y ago
  > Or even indicate the frequency at which you’re able to consider contributions. Since most things are on GitHub these days, implementing some PR-related analytics for each repo would be nice. This would give you an rough estimate on what to expect and make an informed decision on how much time you are willing to spend.
  - righthand 2y ago
    I believe the repo commit frequency will tell you this (sort of) combined with reviewing pr closed history. However that doesn’t account for the inner circle issue. The main intent of the information though is to indicate process for good natured contributions, however basic as to minimize time waste for the maintainer.
- serial_dev 2y ago
  I still believe that open source is about what's in the license, and everything else is just us putting expectations on others. Understanding this made me less angry with the world. And why do I need to put any of these things to anywhere, why do I need to explicitly opt out? And making promises about the frequency at which I'm considering contributions, promises I'll most likely break at some point, just sounds like a perfect way to introduce anxiety into my hobby project.
  - righthand 2y ago
    You don’t have to do anything, that is perfectly clear. Just don’t expect to be successful or be taken seriously if your project is expected to be used by everyone. I think you might be confusing my intent about a hobby project vs project ownership as a hobby. This article and thread are mainly about the latter.
- ozim 2y ago
  I’d like to touch the topic of trust issues. When random person from the internet opens PR on my project it is not trust issues to look at it from every angle or not considering it because you don’t have time for that. It is perfectly reasonable not to trust random strangers on the internet.

righthand 2y ago

Okay well I never indicated any sort of urgency for my contributions, just that they be considered at all, not ignored then reimplemented because the maintainer has trust issues. Projects I have contributed to in the past aren’t personal projects. They are public facing software that is expecting to be used by the public. The first one I mentioned was a UI library that made me sign a contributors agreement, others have been desktop applications and desktop vpn management code. If you have no intent of accepting contributions you should put that in your README.md or CONTRIBUTING.md. Or even indicate the frequency at which you’re able to consider contributions.

m000 2y ago
> Or even indicate the frequency at which you’re able to consider contributions. Since most things are on GitHub these days, implementing some PR-related analytics for each repo would be nice. This would give you an rough estimate on what to expect and make an informed decision on how much time you are willing to spend.
- righthand 2y ago
  I believe the repo commit frequency will tell you this (sort of) combined with reviewing pr closed history. However that doesn’t account for the inner circle issue. The main intent of the information though is to indicate process for good natured contributions, however basic as to minimize time waste for the maintainer.
serial_dev 2y ago
I still believe that open source is about what's in the license, and everything else is just us putting expectations on others. Understanding this made me less angry with the world. And why do I need to put any of these things to anywhere, why do I need to explicitly opt out? And making promises about the frequency at which I'm considering contributions, promises I'll most likely break at some point, just sounds like a perfect way to introduce anxiety into my hobby project.
- righthand 2y ago
  You don’t have to do anything, that is perfectly clear. Just don’t expect to be successful or be taken seriously if your project is expected to be used by everyone. I think you might be confusing my intent about a hobby project vs project ownership as a hobby. This article and thread are mainly about the latter.
ozim 2y ago
I’d like to touch the topic of trust issues. When random person from the internet opens PR on my project it is not trust issues to look at it from every angle or not considering it because you don’t have time for that. It is perfectly reasonable not to trust random strangers on the internet.