[0] https://github.com/PyCQA/pylint/issues/5039

The article specifically mentions that they were not auto-generated,

"It was also interesting to see the reaction from open source developers to unsolicited pull requests from what looks like a bot (really a bot found the problem and made the PR, but really a human developer at Code Review Doctor did triage the issue before the PR was raised)"

Looking at 1 bot it doesn't sound bad, when you have everyones bot doing this kind of stuff it can quickly become more of a nuisance than a help.

    * Small benefit to bot creator
    * Tiny benefit to project
    * Modest cost to maintainer

I'm still open to the idea that bots could be a net win, because most projects really do have heaps of small simple mistakes lying around. I'm sympathetic to the maintainers though. They always seem to get the short end of the stick.

That guy was not happy. I do agree that it's basically advertising and that's annoying.

It's basically using open source repos as an advertising platform for their static-analysis bot.

If they want to offer services, they can reach out to the maintainers. This is different than a human opening a valid PR on a OS repo since the commit message includes an ad and now they're advertising on HN.

1. It's hard to explain the impact to the application of the current problem. Thus it looks like a theoretical issue

2. Sometimes people rely on the bug for their code to work

3. Surprise work can be poorly received (ie: not the current priority)

(I don't think ignoring it is invalid or wrong by any means, given there's so many reasons one might not engage in a timely manner, or at all, in the issues section or PRs. I don't monitor my repos issues because I just don't feel interested in supporting my code. Feel free to fork or ignore!)

https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/issues/5285

https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-terra/issues/7981

https://github.com/beetbox/beets/issues/4340

I do think those concerns are legitimate. (I also think more tooling is a good thing!)

I disagree that the first isn't a complaint -- the owner stated that this behavior isn't appreciated but decided to let it slide because the issue was valid.

In the third issue, the owner also explicitly stated: "I don't think bots posting unsolicited static analysis results are a good idea." I have no opinions on whether the code should be clearer, but that doesn't change the validity of the reaction.

FWIW my reaction was classic "expectations not meeting reality": weeks of work to do (what I thought) was a mutually beneficial helpful thing. I was naively not expecting non-positive responses and was ill prepared when you raised valid concerns I had not considered.

Again, I am working on that and sorry I was passive aggressive to you.