The big red flag here that should warn away anyone from interacting with the project is that the maintainer clearly wasn’t using a standard library for time functions. Arrogant stupidity is a given in that situation.
February 31st, 24:59 is going to be wild.
I don’t contribute to projects most of the time strictly due to the hurdles in place for contributions. if I see an issue with something, I would like to be able to properly fix it, not have to follow a multi month process to actually get it in
The last project I wanted to contribute to had the following system:
- make an account (makes sense, its a self hosted tracker)
- verify my identity and specify what I wanted to do in a whole different project in order to get validated to be able to open issues in the tracker
- open an issue stating that I found a problem
- state in the issue that I was willing to fix said problem
- agree to sign the code away if done
- wait for response confirming that it was ok
- fork the project
- fix the issue on your fork
- create test units for the project
- submit a merge on the main project
- wait weeks to months for the actual maintainer teams to review the fix and make suggestions/alterations
- fix any merge conflicts that was created during the time that it took to review
- rinse and repeat the last 2 steps until it’s finally merged
Luckily I had noticed that the timeframe of existing requests prior to doing it, and decided to pass on it.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of those steps are necessary for proper development cycles but, it’s the extra steps that are annoying. I’m looking to quickly contribute and move on. Too many steps or if the process seems like it will be a major pain in the butt = You can find and fix it yourself.
Most projects if they have that I will at least open an issue for it so it’s known as a problem… but some projects don’t seem to want them reported, let alone fixed.
I 100% understand the frustration. It can easily feel like you’re doing the maintainers a favor and they’re making this harder than it needs to be.
The thing is, though, from the maintainer side, it very often feels like you’re asked to do those contributors favors. You may not care for whatever feature they want to contribute, but then are supposed to put in work reviewing their contributions and possibly having to patch up their work, if it doesn’t meet quality standards.And then, yeah, you start requiring quality gates to ensure you don’t have to put in extra work for something you don’t care about. But then may also end up putting hurdles in place, so that effectively fewer contributions show up asking for reviews. It’s an ugly solution, but frankly, it’s better than having contributors put in actual work creating a pull request and then you not having time to review it.
Yeah, I understand that point of view as well, especially for feature expansions. I don’t agree with that point of view at all for bug reports /fixes though. It’s not like I’m asking for an additional feature on top of the devs’ already existing code. I’m fixing a mistake that the dev added to their code that they haven’t had time to fix, I don’t see the need of multi week or month review processes for those.
But at the end of the day I tell myself that if the dev wanted help with the project they would have made the system easier and I just move on with my life. or if it’s too much of a blocker or if it’s a small change just fork the code myself if allowed, fix it and then never bother with the hassle of submitting it upstream.
Sorry for meeting such an asshole maintainer. I’d never do this, especially for someone who actually did the preparatory work to find the location of the bug.
Seriously that’s an incredible bug report.
I’ve changed some of the details so it’s not easily googlable because it’s linked to my RL identity. The bug is a purely cosmetic off-by-one error though. And I didn’t give any indication I thought it was important or urgent. But the concise description of the bug, reproduction steps, why I strongly suspect it’s happening, and where I strongly suspect the fix needs to be made were all included.
The maintainer’s comments are pretty much verbatim.
This happens every single time I try to file a good bug report, without exception. I suspect they see the woman’s name on my account and assume I have no idea what I’m talking about?
Yeah, I’d buy that reporter a beer or something.
I wish the ones I get were half as good.
Then stop writing such obscure bugs?
It’s starting to go from bug report to peer review. if he made the fix too, it’d be a fucking pull request
What project is this? I have never seen a reaction like that, if anything I’ve had the opposite, where I said it was a minor inconvenience and the maintainer said “what do you mean ‘minor’? This is terrible!”
yeah, it does kinda feel like satirical exageration of a real scenario
As I said in another comment: some minor details of the bug report have been changed so it’s not easily googlable. But the maintainer’s comments are pretty much verbatim.
No way. Stuck up shithead programmers are a damn cliche. This doesn’t even begin to approach satire.
(said as a software engineer of multiple decades)
Yes please link us to the bug tracker if it’s public, or the app if not, so we can confirm the bug for them (which they’ll obviously hate, but deserve).
If a single bug report about it got this reaction… Imagine.
Yes please link us to the bug tracker if it’s public, or the app if not, so we can confirm the bug for them (which they’ll obviously hate, but deserve).
this is getting close to asking them to doxx their other identities
this is getting close to asking them to doxx their other identities
Too close for my liking, so thanks but no thanks
Close but no cigar.
My experience was the opposite. I asked the maintainer if I could specify environment variable directly in the sandbox profile config and they said “uh you can do that with the cli [reference to documentation], but sure I will think about adding it” and they had a version by the evening that I could test.
.cpp is the funniest file extension, .see PP lmaooooooo
PR rejected: Unnecessary bloat.
