> An open pull request represents a commitment from maintainers: that the contribution will be reviewed carefully and considered seriously for inclusion.

This has always been the problem with github culture.

On the Linux and GCC mailing lists, a posted patch does not represent any kind of commitment whatsoever from the maintainers. That's how it should be.

The fact that github puts the number of open PR requests at the very top of every single page related to a project, in an extremely prominent position, is the sort of manipulative "driving engagement" nonsense you'd expect from social media, not serious engineering tools.

The fact that you have to pay github money in order to permanently turn off pull requests or issues (I mean turn off, not automatically close with a bot) is another one of these. BTW codeberg lets any project disable these things.

Also turns out the mildly higher barrier to entry for mailing-based workflows is actually a feature.

I have an old open-source project that I archived on GitHub (because I do not maintain it anymore). Once a user opened an issue with a completely unrelated project of mine (same user account than the archived one), posting some AI slop with step-by-step click instructions how to unarchive the project and enable issues etc. He spammed the same text to two different email addresses he found from my Github page and the git history. I banned that user immediately from opening issues on that said project, closed the issue and ignored him. Just to receive another outrageous email why I did not comply with his request, and how I would dare to ban him from opening further issues. I swear, the entitlement sometimes on GitHub is unbearable.