4 ms·
That's true. I'm always annoyed when I send a patch for a project, it's integrated and that's it. No thanks. No mention of what I did. Just as if the author jus
by zobzu 14y ago
That's true. I'm always annoyed when I send a patch for a project, it's integrated and that's it. No thanks. No mention of what I did. Just as if the author just found something and added it. Sometimes it's one liners (which may take hours to debug as usual), sometimes its a few thousand lines.
This behavior kills the will to contribute quickly.
- adimitrov 14y agoThat's what github is doing so nicely with pull-requests: you maintain authorship of your fixes (it's even cryptographically secured,) and the entire process is visible and documented on the project's source home page.
- zokier 14y agoThat is not unique to github pull requests, is it? I thought that was common to all of git, and the reason why git has separate "author" and "commiter" fields
- zobzu 14y agoyes, as they gotta pull from you for that. github just makes the process easier and it is more trouble not to attribute via github. in both cases you can make a patch (=copy/paste) instead. and in the first case you often actually provide a patch because it might be easier or because they're using something else than a git or git-like vcs
- zobzu 14y agoyes and no, i mean, one can copy paste and change a lil and it works. That being said Github makes it harder not to do that (but some people are like that) That being said too, not everyone uses github ;-)
- anacrolix 14y agoAmen. I made a patch to RB, took me hours to find the source. It was a one liner, no credit. Ubuntu took the patch as a recommended update however, got my name on there.