
“So, you decided to contribute to open source” - kawera
https://twitter.com/eranhammer/status/881614401471520768
======
x1798DE
I don't know why people take this stuff so personally. I maintain open source
resources and for the most part people have been fine. Most of my complaints
are that I don't always get reproducible bugs and I don't have enough time to
do everything. Even if someone comes in acting all entitled, that's their
problem, not mine - since in reality I'm under no obligation to support their
use case.

I understand that as infrastructure maintainers, you only get noticed when
your stuff breaks, so you may feel under siege for doing a thankless job, but
honestly the incentives will never change, so it's probably helps to try to
recognize how much control you have in that kind of situation.

~~~
voltagex_
[https://twitter.com/eranhammer/status/881615072283340800](https://twitter.com/eranhammer/status/881615072283340800)

------
aarohmankad
My biggest pain point when I contribute to open source has always been the
owner/maintainers being unresponsive to new issues/pull requests.

I wonder if this is a consequence of the behavior Hammer is describing?

~~~
voltagex_
Issues I can understand not responding to but pull requests that fix things
and pass tests should be a one-click merge.

~~~
klez
That may be dangerous. What if the patch works, passes all tests by contains
non-obviously malicious (or simply non-obviously buggy, which no current test
catches) code?

I prefer maintainers taking a bit more time to review it instead of doing one-
click merges.

Of course, there's a world between one-click merge and total unresponsiveness,
but still.

------
erlend_sh
This is also available as a blog post: [https://medium.com/@eranhammer/so-you-
decided-to-contribute-...](https://medium.com/@eranhammer/so-you-decided-to-
contribute-to-open-source-93b640cf2ae2)

