3 ms·
> The changes were harmless and correct, but that did not make me feel better about accepting or merging them. So do you have the project’s best interest at he
by dumpsterdiver 1mo ago
> The changes were harmless and correct, but that did not make me feel better about accepting or merging them.
So do you have the project’s best interest at heart or not? If you’re more concerned about the intent of a valid contribution than the content, why don’t you ask yourself where your intent is? You rejected a valid contribution based on unverified vibes about the person’s intent, instead of assuming they were just being helpful.
- inigyou 1mo ago[flagged]
- cwillu 1mo agoThe changes were grammar and spelling fixes in comments. It is not sufficient for someone to intend to be helpful.
- alansaber 1mo agoIf people can spam low-effort PRs they will. Unverified vibes is you closing your eyes to a very real issue.
- herrherrmann 1mo agoI think it’s implied that accepting these kinds of PRs will take time away from working on actual improvements to the codebase. So, on the long term it’s better to be strict with these kinds of silly contributions, and focus on changes that matter more (e.g. features or fixes).
- customguy 1mo agoWhy not assume someone does have the best interest of their own project at heart? How do you get to question that out of the gate, while pretending automated grammar and spelling fixes to rack up PR counts are benevolent unless proven otherwise? Simply assume the person who made the thing you didn't make, who was the only person (or persons) on the planet to come up with that exact thing, knows what's best for that person (or persons). Just like you would handle your own stuff.
- inigyou 1mo agoInteresting. You flagged my sibling comment to this one based on it being from a random word picker.