53 ms·
That's why I suggested an explicit "close as unwelcome" option (label to be bikeshed). And the impact of the rejection should decay over time. In any case, my
by CodesInChaos 4mo ago
That's why I suggested an explicit "close as unwelcome" option (label to be bikeshed). And the impact of the rejection should decay over time.
In any case, my proposal is a rough sketch of how I'd approach the problem, not a production ready algorithm. But I'd expect even that basic approach to work a lot better than github's approach.
- danuker 4mo agoReally it should be a "report as spam" option
- Tade0 4mo agoUltimately what kills any effort to curb this behaviour is the fact that the perpetrator can always open another account. If I was a maintainer of an open-source project, I would have a two-tier system: -PRs from previous contributors. -All others, sorted by lines of code, ascending. Reasoning: -Large PRs from someone without a track record are rare. -It's not a huge ask to have people first solve a smaller problem. -Small PRs are easy to verify - it's especially easy to tell if a given one-liner is impactful or just spam. Should also be easier to summarise it in the title. -Don't quote me on that but I think LLMs are still bad at clear, concise, meaningful changes.