I've been on both ends of this.

As the maintainer of ghidra-delinker-extension, whenever I get a non-trivial PR (like adding an object file format or ISA analyzer) I'm happy that it happens. It also means that I get to install a toolchain, maybe learn how to use it (MSVC...), figure out all of the nonsense and undocumented bullshit in it (COFF...), write byte-perfect roundtrip parser/serializer plus tests inside binary-file-toolkit if necessary, prepare golden Ghidra databases, write the unit tests for them, make sure that the delinked stuff when relinked actually works, have it pass my standards quality plus the linter and have a clean Git history.

I usually find it easier to take their branch, do all of that work myself (attributing authorship to commits whenever appropriate), push it to the master branch and close the PR than puppeteering someone halfway across the globe through GitHub comments into doing all of that for me.

Conversely, at work I implemented support for PKCS#7 certificate chains inside of Mbed-TLS and diligently submitted PRs upstream. They were correct, commented, documented, tested, everything was spotless to the implicit admission of one of the developers. It's still open today (with merge conflicts naturally) and there are like five open PRs for the exact same feature.

When I see this, I'm not going to insist, I'll move on to my next Jira task.

▲

a1o 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> push it to the master branch and close the PR than puppeteering someone halfway across the globe through GitHub comments into doing all of that for me

While I understand the sentiment I am glad I got into open source more than fifteen years ago, because it was maintainers “puppeteering” me that taught me a lot of the different processes involved in each project that would be hard to learn by myself later.

	▲	chongli 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is the Eternal September problem in disguise. That is, the personal interactions we treasure so much in small communities simply do not scale when the communities grow. If a community (or a project) grows too large then the maintainers / moderators can no longer spend this amount of time to help a beginner get up to speed.
	▲	toast0 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There's a balance though. Some people want to end up with a perfect PR that gets applied, some just want the change upstream. Most of my PRs are things where I'm not really interested in learning the ins and outs of the project I'm submitting to; I've just run into an issue that I needed fixed, so I fixed it[1], but it's better if it's fixed upstream. I'll submit my fix as a PR, and if it needs formatting/styling/whatevs, it'll probably be less hassle if upstream tweaks it to fit. I'm not looking to be a regular contributor, I just want to fix things. Personally, I don't even care about having my name on the fix. Now, if I start pushing a lot of PRs, maybe it's worth the effort to get me onto the page stylewise. But, I don't usually end up pushing a lot of PRs on any one project. [1] Usually, I can have my problem fixed much sooner if I fix it, than if I open a bug report and hope the maintainer will fix it.

▲

matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I usually find it easier to take their branch, do all of that work myself (attributing authorship to commits whenever appropriate), push it to the master branch and close the PR than puppeteering someone halfway across the globe through GitHub comments into doing all of that for me.

My most negative experiences with free and open source contributions have been like that. The one maintainer who engaged with me until my patches got into master was the best experience I ever had contributing to open source software to this day.

Pretty sad that people see engaging with other developers as "puppeteering someone halfway across the globe through GitHub comments"...