3 ms·

Yes, if you ignore pull requests, it does mean you're doing a pretty bad job of maintaining the project. But what's so wrong with that? Where does this entitle

by burke 12y ago

Yes, if you ignore pull requests, it does mean you're doing a pretty bad job of maintaining the project. But what's so wrong with that? Where does this entitlement mindset come from, where as soon as someone has posted code on github, they've signed a lifelong contract to maintain it responsibly? There's nothing wrong with abandoning code. It's open source in the first place; it's not like you're making money on it.

Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
You're right, there's nothing wrong with abandoning code. That's not what the author is talking about and it's not what I'm talking about. If you call yourself a maintainer and claim to accept pull requests and you don't, then you're a shitty maintainer and it's your fault. I'm arguing that you should follow through with what you say or stop saying it.
mercurial 12y ago
No, but on the other hand, it doesn't cost much to update the README and officially orphan the project and/or leave feedback to indicate that the project is up for adoption, as a courtesy to people who have spent time improving your work.
- irq-1 12y ago
  Github should have more project meta-data, rather than sifting through the README. For example, Production Status: experimental / alpha / it's complicated / production / paid support. Pull request status, standards, response time-frame and response time-frame history would be nice. Canonical URL could become a cross-VCS hosting standard that fixes the annoying "this project has moved" messages. Simple configurations could change meta-data based on activity over time, or voting, or (?). Default settings like "Mark this repo Abandoned after 3 months without commits" would cleanup confusion for most small projects.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Agreed, a "health status" for projects would be very beneficial, and probably not that hard to implement.
  - djur 12y ago
    Sourceforge has that, because beyond being a collaboration platform it also had goals of being a software directory and distribution site. Github seems to carefully avoid picking up features that position it as a directory or distributor, though.
djur 12y ago
Ignoring pull requests doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the code or leaving it unmaintained. Just because something is distributed as free software doesn't make it a community-developed project. A developer is completely within their rights to refuse to accept any outside contributions to a project they manage. The idea that open source requires you to accept community contributions is actually pretty dangerous for the concept. I've run into more than one developer who keeps their code closed just because they feel that open source comes with an obligation to run a 'bazaar'.

by burke 12y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago

You're right, there's nothing wrong with abandoning code. That's not what the author is talking about and it's not what I'm talking about. If you call yourself a maintainer and claim to accept pull requests and you don't, then you're a shitty maintainer and it's your fault. I'm arguing that you should follow through with what you say or stop saying it.

mercurial 12y ago

No, but on the other hand, it doesn't cost much to update the README and officially orphan the project and/or leave feedback to indicate that the project is up for adoption, as a courtesy to people who have spent time improving your work.

irq-1 12y ago
Github should have more project meta-data, rather than sifting through the README. For example, Production Status: experimental / alpha / it's complicated / production / paid support. Pull request status, standards, response time-frame and response time-frame history would be nice. Canonical URL could become a cross-VCS hosting standard that fixes the annoying "this project has moved" messages. Simple configurations could change meta-data based on activity over time, or voting, or (?). Default settings like "Mark this repo Abandoned after 3 months without commits" would cleanup confusion for most small projects.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Agreed, a "health status" for projects would be very beneficial, and probably not that hard to implement.
- djur 12y ago
  Sourceforge has that, because beyond being a collaboration platform it also had goals of being a software directory and distribution site. Github seems to carefully avoid picking up features that position it as a directory or distributor, though.

djur 12y ago

Ignoring pull requests doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the code or leaving it unmaintained. Just because something is distributed as free software doesn't make it a community-developed project. A developer is completely within their rights to refuse to accept any outside contributions to a project they manage. The idea that open source requires you to accept community contributions is actually pretty dangerous for the concept. I've run into more than one developer who keeps their code closed just because they feel that open source comes with an obligation to run a 'bazaar'.