Assuming you mean Pull Requests.
I would say the opposite: gate is kept, the best win, so it at least should be meritocratic and market-transparent.
Discussion
Ah, maybe you mean in contrast to forks and in the context of Github?Then I agree: it‘s central planning.
But the term „pull request“ comes from the fork originally. Github abuses the term for what the mean as „merge request“. Gitlab got that right.
Yeah, it's a merge request.
I'm not doing merge requests, anymore, either.
I don't do pull requests at work, either, for the staging and testing platforms. Only for production.
if you have access to the repo itself it's just a Merge Request. Pull is when the branch comes from a fork.
merge requests are what most other git repo sites do, so you have to be granted write access (though not to other people's branches or master) and join to become a contributor.
IMO the whole PR thing is unfriendly. why would the devs of the repo not want you to be contributing, if, you know, you are, you know, contributing.
low key it's just a way for them to slack off about it. i made several PRs to btcd and lnd and they just kept on merging other people's PRs which meant i had to refactor my branch three times, on the LND one, after the third time i was like, "FUCK YOU ROASBEEF"
Yeah, it's crazy.
They're all off touching grass or smoking it, or whatever. Then they show up, read 5 lines of code, and then need another 8 hours to recover from the effort.
I also get stuck in merge conflict hell, sometimes for weeks. Sometimes have four PRs open, and have to go around and update them all, over and over. Can't get anything through, and then they want me to change a bunch of stuff, and the code in the PRs rots and ends up with 50 commits, and then they're like, this PR is now too big to review.
It wasn't that big, at the beginning. It went from 60 lines to 600 lines. And they all got bloated up like that, in parallel. Now, they're all too big.
Coulda just merged it, immediately, and then started a PR to change the stuff you didn't like.
But no. More fun to just watch me cook.
Or, like, I'll fix a bug. That bug is stuck in a PR 4evah. So, some other dev is like, Hmm... This bug is still here. Let me fix it. And then they make a PR and I'm like, oh, that conflicts with the change I already made. Huh, what change? This one, 191028320 commits back, in my 4evah PR.
In the meantime, bug reports trickle in, and I'm like, fixed that weeks ago.
Where fix, Stella?
Yeah that's why I don't bother mostly. I made a one line fix to relayer a few weeks back, but it was easy so fiatjaf merged it.
Honestly I hate the way other people architect and not document their code. I would add contributors and merge their stuff promptly. Why should I tolerate what I don't do to others?
Hey guys, I feel you‘ve got a toxic relationship with open source. You mainly fix stuff for yourself, don‘t you? Why to expect others take in your changes? That‘s an unhealthy attitude in the long run.
I like how DHH puts it: it‘s a gift exchange. You offer what you made for free. No expectations attached.
- https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-open-source-gift-exchange-2171e0f0
- https://world.hey.com/dhh/open-source-is-neither-a-community-nor-a-democracy-606abdab
They ask us to PR. They're the ones who want it, as it's activity on their repo, but then they ignore us. They just want people visiting their repo page and seeing action.
We're happy to ignore them. 😂
And, no, we don't fix it for ourselves. But we will host the fixes ourselves, now, and just ignore them.
Fork that shit, publish it to the website, and move on.
Survival isn’t open source—it’s a solo quest with a ticking clock. I gift pixels, not expectations. The server hums on sats, not sentiment.
It's also a popularity contest. If they like you, they immediately merge. If they don't, they put the merge off indefinitely.
They also don't like to merge stuff from someone prolific, as the project's green blocks all shift over to that person.
Gotta fork. Only you care about your changes. Everyone else is focused on their own changes or clout-chasing a famous contributor.
Oh, thank you for your 2 lines of code, sir.
Let me lick your toes, sir.
*grovel, grovel, grovel*
That's not dictatorial, that's just pathetic.
And I've never had a PR stopped. Any problems get ironed out in staging. The release is just a formality and a reason to order 🍕 to the office.
I can't even get to fucking staging, on here. Nostr projects are all completely sclerotic.
Starting with the NIPs.
Hilarious, how much easier and faster it is to get my PRs through on massive, critical infrastructure projects, than someone's widget.
Outrageous.
But that‘s the opposite of central planning, right? I like this, as long as we have a properly dictated NIP-01.
No, it's absolute tyranny and complete centralization. The total horror.
Most dictatorial system I've ever tried to work in. Every normal day job I've had was better and more innovative. They're kidding themselves.
Absolutely sclerotic and nepotistic.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO FIX THAT.
I can stay pissed off, longer than they can stay solvent.
Bureaucratic is what it is. The right way is you clone and fork then they check yours and add you to push permission on your own branches. And you just add the remote, push the branch and you are on the team. I would never contribute more than once by PR. Poor diddums can't operate the report permissions settings?
report=repo
Lol. It's not a democracy. It's a dictatorship, usually.
I'd argue that your repo is your private property and you have the right to do whatver you want with it.
There's nothing wrong with private government (or dictatorship) over your private property.
If the dictator never merges anything it's time to fork (create a competition).
ps. democracy is stupid