Open-source, not open-contribution

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by TheRealPomax on Thursday January 28, 2021 @12:31PM (#25945306)

You can't enforce a readme. If it says "PRs are not accepted", and you create a pull request template that says "please be aware your PR will get closed automatically", folks will still file PRs in the hopes that their work is special enough to consider, and they still get their hopes crushed when that their PR gets closed without ever having been looked at.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by filmgirlcw on Thursday January 28, 2021 @01:08PM (#25946072)

If someone either willfully or through purposeful negligence both doesn’t read a README or PR template that outline PRs aren’t welcome and submits a PR hoping against hope for a different outcome, I think we can assume that absolutely nothing will prevent them from having their hopes crushed.

I don’t think optimizing for that edge case makes a ton of sense. Having the ability to hide PRs might be a nice feature, but some people use that for stuff other than straight pull requests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by kelnos on Thursday January 28, 2021 @04:56PM (#25949940)

It's not just about that, though. I want to avoid crushing people's hopes, yes, but in the event that they are absolutely set on submitting a PR, I don't want to have to deal with getting a notification and having to manually close it. (And no, I don't want to take the time to set up a bot to do it either. I have better things to do with my time.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by filmgirlcw on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:04PM (#25950813)

I mean, I get that, and I'm not opposed to having a method to turn off PRs. I'm just saying that if the impetus is avoiding crushing people's hopes because a README and template isn't clear enough, I think there are people that will still create an issue or send an email about why they can't submit a PR.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by TheRealPomax on Thursday January 28, 2021 @04:15PM (#25949331)

Then maybe those folks should get a better feature for that, too. More than one thing can be suboptimal about the same feature-as-implemented.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by filmgirlcw on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:07PM (#25950835)

Totally valid, and I'm not opposed to an option to turn it off, I was just saying I can understand why some people might need to keep it on, even if they do have a README and PR template that makes it clear they don't accept PRs. I just think the "crushing the hopes of people that don't read" aspect is probably the lowest priority in that sort of situation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by cutemonster on Thursday January 28, 2021 @08:25PM (#25952362)

That's not the only thing.

A few of those who didn't read the README, and get their PRs auto closed, might get upset at the maintainers, and write something a bit angry, making it less pleasant to be a maintainer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Open-source, not open-contribution by alkonaut on Friday January 29, 2021 @10:31AM (#25958238)

Enforcing the readme is simply closing/ignoring the PR's.

You can easily do that, but what you can't do is prevent people from being angry. You can do everything in your power to prevent people from accidentally wasting their time, and you should. This is where "hide the feature" would come in.

[ Parent | on HN ]