undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaccount427mo ago0 comments

> Personally as a maintainer, if someone is fixing one typo in order to "get started" contributing to a project I would prefer that they go through and check for any other instances of typos in the project to make a more complete fix (or even better, add a CI job that runs codespell or similar spell checkers). That feels more like someone actually interested in fixing something about the project, as opposed to sending a one-line drive-by patch to pad their resume. (I'm still happy to take the patch of course!)

I have to disagree, changes to development processes are the worst kind of drive by contributions. I don't want CI jobs contributed from someone who isn't going to maintain them.

0 comments

cyphar7mo ago

I mean, I would prefer that it be done as part of a discussion with upstream but if you're talking about a GitHub Action it's not really that much effort to maintain in my experience.

But even if adding CI jobs is not the preference of upstream, I would prefer that the contributor runs codespell locally and fixes all of the issues rather than just sending one-line patches. And I can imagine much worse forms of drive-by contributions than CI jobs that you can easily disable in the future.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsaccount427mo ago0 comments

I have to disagree, changes to development processes are the worst kind of drive by contributions. I don't want CI jobs contributed from someone who isn't going to maintain them.

0 comments

cyphar7mo ago

I mean, I would prefer that it be done as part of a discussion with upstream but if you're talking about a GitHub Action it's not really that much effort to maintain in my experience.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse