4 ms·

You quoted a snipped out of context and argued the wrong thing. They don't need to give a good reason for accepting it, that's not the issue. the issue in this

You quoted a snipped out of context and argued the wrong thing. They don't need to give a good reason for accepting it, that's not the issue. the issue in this thread is taking away the ability to create PRs to begin with. You're overreaching and saying "not only do we offer no warranty or guarantees for this program, but we will actively prohibit others from linking their fixes to issues to prevent you from making the program usable". You don't owe users anything, but your users don't deserve hostility from you either!

Lammy 9mo ago
Wrong; unsolicited PRs from people who want me to maintain their needs for them are what's hostile. Take the project as-is, fork and maintain it yourself, or pay up.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  Why are unsolicited PRs hostile, you have no obligation to even read them? Unless you're saying you're obligated to do something about PRs. If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. Similar to how hardware makers shouldn't be making hard to repair their hardware.
  - Lammy 9mo ago
    > If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. I disagree with this completely.
    - notepad0x90 9mo ago
      If you plant a public tree for example, you may not be responsible if the tree produces a poisonous fruit or not, but if someone puts a sign next to the tree telling people "boil before eating,otherwise it's poisonous", that's their right. But if you don't want your tree to look bad and prevent them from doing so, now you're responsible for any poisoning from the tree. You can either be responsible or not responsible, but you can't be __irresponsible__. You can't act in a manner that you know will harm others, when not doing so costs you nothing, not even a perception of obligation. If you have the right to turn off PRs, any company out there also has the right to make thing that are hard to repair. I don't want to say anyone who agrees with you on this thread complaining about Google or some other company shutting down your accounts with no explanation either.
      - Lammy 9mo ago
        > If you have the right to turn off PRs Joke's on you; I already do shut down every PR automatically on my projects with the repo-lockdown bot: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/repo-lockdown https://github.com/marketplace/actions/repo-lockdown Making my code public at all is what costs me nothing. I am already writing it. I am already versioning it with Git. Giving you access to it is either a no-op or is some amount of public good. It can never be a negative. This is what Free Software is. Read Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
        notepad0x90 9mo ago
        Joke's not on me, that's exactly what I was suggesting. you win! and I agree with that bot as a solution. Keep your code private if that's your attitude though. You don't want to share your code, you just want free advertisement. You know what, you wrote your code, you didn't write github, you don't own github and you don't own the interaction github users have regarding public projects. PRs are not your software. What you need to do is maintain a private git repo, or just make the repo private and post tarballs and builds on the releases page. that will solve the problem even better for you. you'll still be publishing source as well as executables that way. PRs are about github, it's users and their interaction with projects. When you give someone access to a repo, you can't complain when they create a feature branch and request a merge, that's all a PR is. In your case, you want to give people access to source code but not a repository, so do just that and leave people who want to publish a repository alone, or restrict access to your repo to a github organization with people you approve of to make contributions to private repos.
        Lammy 9mo ago
        > Keep your code private if that's your attitude though. You don't want to share your code, you just want free advertisement. There is no money nor mindshare to be had, so advertising is the entirely wrong way to think about it. This is a thought-process warped by the commercial sector. Even if somebody doesn't use my code they are still welcome to learn from it. They're welcome to use it, too, I just don't want to know about it :)
vdqtp3 9mo ago
> taking away the ability to create PRs to begin with. > your users don't deserve hostility from you either! No one has the right to demand my time to review their PR to my code and explain or justify a rejection. If I don't want to accept PRs, that's a valid choice on my part.
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  I feel like I'm not even speaking english on this thread. I've said MANY times that project owners owe nothing to anyone, period. You don't owe anything. Ignore the PRs, send them to your junk folder. I don't care. That has nothing to do with this discussion. People have a right to propose changes to broken things they use. Your right to ignore them and not provide support is a two-way street. Others also have a right to ignore what you want and propose changes for other users to see. it's right there is name of the feature "Pull Request", it's a request, not a demand. If you were operating a non-profit business in person, you can't get mad at people suggesting changes either. You can ignore them for sure, you can pull up some disclaimer or whatever. But it's hostile and mean to prevent people from even stating their opinions and proposing a change. At that point, make your project private. You don't owe the public many things, but when you create a project and make it public on a shared hosting site, other users also have rights to make commentary, since you've exposed it as public, and proposals and to assist each other. I'd even go further to say that this counts as intentional interference with users' attempt to fix vulnerable and buggy code, and as such an intentional attempt to harm the public. It's one thing to not guarantee anything about your software, it's another thing to prevent people from trying to fix it.
  - Lammy 9mo ago
    > People have a right to propose changes to broken things they use. Here's the root of your misunderstanding. “Broken” is subjective, relative only to you. > it's right there is name of the feature "Pull Request", it's a request, not a demand. That's marketing-speak. It is absolutely a demand. PRs are a growth-hacking feature and are part of how GitHub got to be so dominant. The abuse of social pressure calling someone's project unmaintained was the same mechanism used for the XZ Utils backdoor: https://securelist.com/xz-backdoor-story-part-2-social-engineering/112476/ https://securelist.com/xz-backdoor-story-part-2-social-engin...

Lammy 9mo ago

Wrong; unsolicited PRs from people who want me to maintain their needs for them are what's hostile. Take the project as-is, fork and maintain it yourself, or pay up.

notepad0x90 9mo ago
Why are unsolicited PRs hostile, you have no obligation to even read them? Unless you're saying you're obligated to do something about PRs. If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. Similar to how hardware makers shouldn't be making hard to repair their hardware.
- Lammy 9mo ago
  > If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. I disagree with this completely.
  - notepad0x90 9mo ago
    If you plant a public tree for example, you may not be responsible if the tree produces a poisonous fruit or not, but if someone puts a sign next to the tree telling people "boil before eating,otherwise it's poisonous", that's their right. But if you don't want your tree to look bad and prevent them from doing so, now you're responsible for any poisoning from the tree. You can either be responsible or not responsible, but you can't be __irresponsible__. You can't act in a manner that you know will harm others, when not doing so costs you nothing, not even a perception of obligation. If you have the right to turn off PRs, any company out there also has the right to make thing that are hard to repair. I don't want to say anyone who agrees with you on this thread complaining about Google or some other company shutting down your accounts with no explanation either.
    - Lammy 9mo ago
      > If you have the right to turn off PRs Joke's on you; I already do shut down every PR automatically on my projects with the repo-lockdown bot: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/repo-lockdown https://github.com/marketplace/actions/repo-lockdown Making my code public at all is what costs me nothing. I am already writing it. I am already versioning it with Git. Giving you access to it is either a no-op or is some amount of public good. It can never be a negative. This is what Free Software is. Read Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
      - notepad0x90 9mo ago
        Joke's not on me, that's exactly what I was suggesting. you win! and I agree with that bot as a solution. Keep your code private if that's your attitude though. You don't want to share your code, you just want free advertisement. You know what, you wrote your code, you didn't write github, you don't own github and you don't own the interaction github users have regarding public projects. PRs are not your software. What you need to do is maintain a private git repo, or just make the repo private and post tarballs and builds on the releases page. that will solve the problem even better for you. you'll still be publishing source as well as executables that way. PRs are about github, it's users and their interaction with projects. When you give someone access to a repo, you can't complain when they create a feature branch and request a merge, that's all a PR is. In your case, you want to give people access to source code but not a repository, so do just that and leave people who want to publish a repository alone, or restrict access to your repo to a github organization with people you approve of to make contributions to private repos.
        Lammy 9mo ago
        > Keep your code private if that's your attitude though. You don't want to share your code, you just want free advertisement. There is no money nor mindshare to be had, so advertising is the entirely wrong way to think about it. This is a thought-process warped by the commercial sector. Even if somebody doesn't use my code they are still welcome to learn from it. They're welcome to use it, too, I just don't want to know about it :)

vdqtp3 9mo ago

> taking away the ability to create PRs to begin with. > your users don't deserve hostility from you either! No one has the right to demand my time to review their PR to my code and explain or justify a rejection. If I don't want to accept PRs, that's a valid choice on my part.

notepad0x90 9mo ago
I feel like I'm not even speaking english on this thread. I've said MANY times that project owners owe nothing to anyone, period. You don't owe anything. Ignore the PRs, send them to your junk folder. I don't care. That has nothing to do with this discussion. People have a right to propose changes to broken things they use. Your right to ignore them and not provide support is a two-way street. Others also have a right to ignore what you want and propose changes for other users to see. it's right there is name of the feature "Pull Request", it's a request, not a demand. If you were operating a non-profit business in person, you can't get mad at people suggesting changes either. You can ignore them for sure, you can pull up some disclaimer or whatever. But it's hostile and mean to prevent people from even stating their opinions and proposing a change. At that point, make your project private. You don't owe the public many things, but when you create a project and make it public on a shared hosting site, other users also have rights to make commentary, since you've exposed it as public, and proposals and to assist each other. I'd even go further to say that this counts as intentional interference with users' attempt to fix vulnerable and buggy code, and as such an intentional attempt to harm the public. It's one thing to not guarantee anything about your software, it's another thing to prevent people from trying to fix it.
- Lammy 9mo ago
  > People have a right to propose changes to broken things they use. Here's the root of your misunderstanding. “Broken” is subjective, relative only to you. > it's right there is name of the feature "Pull Request", it's a request, not a demand. That's marketing-speak. It is absolutely a demand. PRs are a growth-hacking feature and are part of how GitHub got to be so dominant. The abuse of social pressure calling someone's project unmaintained was the same mechanism used for the XZ Utils backdoor: https://securelist.com/xz-backdoor-story-part-2-social-engineering/112476/ https://securelist.com/xz-backdoor-story-part-2-social-engin...