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.
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.