Pull requests should not be normalized. The guy in charge of the code base has complete knowledge of it and can always do a better job than randoms making ad hoc changes to quick fix their own problems. Complaining about bugs and missing features is much easier. It's less of a headache and requires less effort and time investment.
Truth is developers don't want to end up maintaining other people's code anyways. It's gotten to the point I roll my eyes whenever I see people saying "patches welcome". Chances are they're not as welcome as you would think. "Show us the code", and when you do... Nothing. Submitting a pull request is no guarantee that they'll accept it. Hell it's no guarantee they'll even give you the time of day. You can put in a whole lot of effort and still end up getting refused or even straight up ignored.
Even if it's an unambiguous improvement on the status quo. They'll commit code that literally returns "not implemented" directly to master and actually ship it out to users. Your pull request will certainly be held to much higher standards though. And that's if they engage with you in an attempt to get your patches merged. They might just decide to ignore your patch and redo all the work themselves, which is exactly what all the complainers wanted them to do in the first place! If they're really nice they'll even credit you in the commit message!
If you're gonna put in effort into someone else's project, just fork it straight up and make it your own project. Don't waste time with upstream. Don't wait for their blessing. Just start making your own version better for you. Don't even submit it back, they can pull it themselves if they want to.
Boo to you. I've up-streamed patches to scipy and a few other python packages. Nobody ever said no to genuine high quality bug reports that were coupled with good fixes. Not saying that will happen every time, but if you're unsure, ask how receptive they are.
I've upstreamed patches too and I increasingly feel like it's a waste of time and that it requires far more effort than it's worth. Good maintainers who work with you are rare. I remember the ones who do.
> Nobody ever said no to genuine high quality bug reports that were coupled with good fixes.
Uhuh.
> ask how receptive they are
Doesn't really help much. It's entirely possible for people to tell you it's fine then change their minds after you actually do it and send the code in. Seriously hope you never have to experience anything of the sort.
You can put effort into all that, observe all the best practices, follow all the rules, try your very best and still end up with literally nothing to show for it simply because the other guy doesn't want to.
Always fork the project and customize it for yourself. Don't argue with others, don't try to convince them, make your version work better for you. It doesn't matter if they want it or not. You don't even have to publish it.
Eh, most of the time you do have to publish it. MIT/BSD/Apache allows you not to, but most big projects are using LGPL or another share-alike license. With those, if you're making a project that you do publish (e.g. a commercial product that uses that library/language/etc.) you do kinda legally have to share that modified source code. It's of course different if you're scripting for your own sake, but the moment you publish anything using them you also have to publish your modified versions of libraries and other stuff.
I do agree with the "fork and make it better for you", but I also think it's common courtesy to throw up issues for the bugs or missing features you encounter, as well as pull requests. If for no other reason then as "prototypes" or "quick fixes" that others can cherry-pick into their own forks. They may get rejected, they may get closed, but you still don't have to sit there arguing about it since you have your own version. From a slightly Kantian angle you have your working version and you've now fulfilled your social duty by offering solutions to problems. You've got no need to campaign for the solutions if they get rejected.
It's virtuous and you get to ignore the github flame wars. There's really no downside beyond taking 5 minutes to be nice and at least put your solution out there. Also fulfills your reciprocal legal duty under LGPL and such.
I think the best way to go (if you're the "Good Samaritan Who Wants to Do His Civic Duty but Also Doesn't Want to End Up Spending the Week in Nerd Court") is to fork it, fix it, and leave a brief comment in the issue thread that says "hey, I fixed this in my fork".
That way, people with the same issue who come in to the issue thread through a search aren't reduced to combing through all the forks to see if one happens to fix the issue. Then instead of spamming up the thread with "me too, this is soo frustrating, fix asap pls", they can spam it up with "merge this fork into the main project asap pls" :-)
If you don't distribute to others you don't need to distribute your own changes even for copyleft licenses. That's why the AGPL license was written, because if you're doing something as a service you won't need to distribute any sources even with GPL license.
> you do kinda legally have to share that modified source code
I'm using the license exactly as intended. Upstream developers literally don't matter. Free software is not about developers, it's about users.
Free software licenses say the user gets the source code. They're about empowering the user, in this case me, with the ability use and modify the software as I see fit. If I customize something for my personal use, then I'm the only user of the fork and license terms are fulfilled. People would only get to demand source code from me if I started distributing compiled executables to other users.
> You've got no need to campaign for the solutions if they get rejected.
I used to feel that need. Caused me significant anxiety. I thought upstreaming patches was the Right Thing to do. Mercifully I've been cured of this misconception.
> There's really no downside beyond taking 5 minutes to be nice and at least put your solution out there.
I have no problem with that. My point is getting involved with upstream is often more trouble than it's worth. Let them do their thing. Just pull from them and rebase your changes. Enjoy life.
People should think twice before trying to cram their unsolicited code down other people's throats. Even when they ask for the code, chances are deep down they don't actually want to deal with it.
Those are great guidelines for never achieving anything relevant.
Also, the same ideas applied to dating rather than to code are what we call "incels/redpillers" and so on, so you might want to calm down a bit I think.
Except when you do 6 the maintainer rejects the request and says that it wasn’t a bug at all, and everyone is stuck with the bug.
Pull requests should not be normalized. The guy in charge of the code base has complete knowledge of it and can always do a better job than randoms making ad hoc changes to quick fix their own problems. Complaining about bugs and missing features is much easier. It's less of a headache and requires less effort and time investment.
Truth is developers don't want to end up maintaining other people's code anyways. It's gotten to the point I roll my eyes whenever I see people saying "patches welcome". Chances are they're not as welcome as you would think. "Show us the code", and when you do... Nothing. Submitting a pull request is no guarantee that they'll accept it. Hell it's no guarantee they'll even give you the time of day. You can put in a whole lot of effort and still end up getting refused or even straight up ignored.
Even if it's an unambiguous improvement on the status quo. They'll commit code that literally returns "not implemented" directly to master and actually ship it out to users. Your pull request will certainly be held to much higher standards though. And that's if they engage with you in an attempt to get your patches merged. They might just decide to ignore your patch and redo all the work themselves, which is exactly what all the complainers wanted them to do in the first place! If they're really nice they'll even credit you in the commit message!
If you're gonna put in effort into someone else's project, just fork it straight up and make it your own project. Don't waste time with upstream. Don't wait for their blessing. Just start making your own version better for you. Don't even submit it back, they can pull it themselves if they want to.
Boo to you. I've up-streamed patches to scipy and a few other python packages. Nobody ever said no to genuine high quality bug reports that were coupled with good fixes. Not saying that will happen every time, but if you're unsure, ask how receptive they are.
I've upstreamed patches too and I increasingly feel like it's a waste of time and that it requires far more effort than it's worth. Good maintainers who work with you are rare. I remember the ones who do.
> Nobody ever said no to genuine high quality bug reports that were coupled with good fixes.
Uhuh.
> ask how receptive they are
Doesn't really help much. It's entirely possible for people to tell you it's fine then change their minds after you actually do it and send the code in. Seriously hope you never have to experience anything of the sort.
We should normalise GOOD pull requests. And possibly avoid making garbage ones that fail 100% of the testsuite.
You can put effort into all that, observe all the best practices, follow all the rules, try your very best and still end up with literally nothing to show for it simply because the other guy doesn't want to.
Always fork the project and customize it for yourself. Don't argue with others, don't try to convince them, make your version work better for you. It doesn't matter if they want it or not. You don't even have to publish it.
I wish more people attempted to actually grasp their dependencies by the scruff of their neck and got to know them deeply.
Eh, most of the time you do have to publish it. MIT/BSD/Apache allows you not to, but most big projects are using LGPL or another share-alike license. With those, if you're making a project that you do publish (e.g. a commercial product that uses that library/language/etc.) you do kinda legally have to share that modified source code. It's of course different if you're scripting for your own sake, but the moment you publish anything using them you also have to publish your modified versions of libraries and other stuff.
I do agree with the "fork and make it better for you", but I also think it's common courtesy to throw up issues for the bugs or missing features you encounter, as well as pull requests. If for no other reason then as "prototypes" or "quick fixes" that others can cherry-pick into their own forks. They may get rejected, they may get closed, but you still don't have to sit there arguing about it since you have your own version. From a slightly Kantian angle you have your working version and you've now fulfilled your social duty by offering solutions to problems. You've got no need to campaign for the solutions if they get rejected.
It's virtuous and you get to ignore the github flame wars. There's really no downside beyond taking 5 minutes to be nice and at least put your solution out there. Also fulfills your reciprocal legal duty under LGPL and such.
I think the best way to go (if you're the "Good Samaritan Who Wants to Do His Civic Duty but Also Doesn't Want to End Up Spending the Week in Nerd Court") is to fork it, fix it, and leave a brief comment in the issue thread that says "hey, I fixed this in my fork".
That way, people with the same issue who come in to the issue thread through a search aren't reduced to combing through all the forks to see if one happens to fix the issue. Then instead of spamming up the thread with "me too, this is soo frustrating, fix asap pls", they can spam it up with "merge this fork into the main project asap pls" :-)
If you don't distribute to others you don't need to distribute your own changes even for copyleft licenses. That's why the AGPL license was written, because if you're doing something as a service you won't need to distribute any sources even with GPL license.
> you do kinda legally have to share that modified source code
I'm using the license exactly as intended. Upstream developers literally don't matter. Free software is not about developers, it's about users.
Free software licenses say the user gets the source code. They're about empowering the user, in this case me, with the ability use and modify the software as I see fit. If I customize something for my personal use, then I'm the only user of the fork and license terms are fulfilled. People would only get to demand source code from me if I started distributing compiled executables to other users.
> You've got no need to campaign for the solutions if they get rejected.
I used to feel that need. Caused me significant anxiety. I thought upstreaming patches was the Right Thing to do. Mercifully I've been cured of this misconception.
> There's really no downside beyond taking 5 minutes to be nice and at least put your solution out there.
I have no problem with that. My point is getting involved with upstream is often more trouble than it's worth. Let them do their thing. Just pull from them and rebase your changes. Enjoy life.
People should think twice before trying to cram their unsolicited code down other people's throats. Even when they ask for the code, chances are deep down they don't actually want to deal with it.
Those are great guidelines for never achieving anything relevant.
Also, the same ideas applied to dating rather than to code are what we call "incels/redpillers" and so on, so you might want to calm down a bit I think.
> Those are great guidelines for never achieving anything relevant.
Relevant to whom? Everything I've done is extremely relevant to me. I wouldn't have done those things if I didn't care about them.
> Also, the same ideas applied to dating rather than to code are what we call "incels/redpillers" and so on
I'd say it's more like MGTOW.
Truth.