Beginning to believe that @Gargron doesn't want me contributing to #mastodon — he's now partially recreated three of my pull requests that I've worked on.
-
@Natanox my stance has always been to try to get work upstream, because the project is complex enough that divergent forks would be hell to maintain
-
@thisismissem If your PR addresses problems his PR won't, is it possible to restructure your PR in a way it improves things without causing conflict, on top of his changes? (It will probably be more work to do so, so if you don't want to do that, I think that's fair, though.)
-
@thisismissem @Natanox speaking as someone who as...watched this same cycle (and worse) happen to developers that aren't you...
...it's not just you. Gargon seems to be de-prioritizing effective moderation, and has been for a while...
...maybe consider that glitch-soc is a viable upstream-enough, given the known toxicity of the upstream Mastodon project maintainer.
It's not just you. And it's not you. You're doing good work, and genuinely being dealt with in an inconsiderate way. Hope you keep contributing, one way or another.
-
@pot the conflicts would be so large and my work has existed well before his. I'm happy to take things back from his into mine or rebase the bits that I can, and I'd already offered that on the first instance of a conflicting PR, then he turned around and worked on an issue I'd literally told him that morning that I'd been working on & needed input from the team.
-
@thisismissem @EveHasWords if this happened at my company to *any* member of the team, and wasn’t directly addressed by leadership, I would be looking for a new job. IMO this is a big red flag for the sustainability of mastodon.
-
@thisismissem @gargron oh what, that would be much more useful than what there is now, and also much better than what he’s done. It sucks having to click through, often multiple times to actually see context etc, adding bulk actions won’t help where he has it at all.
Thanks so much for trying, I can definitely understand why you’re frustrated by this -
@kate @thisismissem @Gargron It is so frustrating to have PR’s remaining open for long. This is the most unproductive situation.
Personally I way more prefer to review code in a synchronous manner with my peers. But with large open source projects, I understand this becomes difficult if not impossible. -
@kate @thisismissem @Gargron You can own a project or be at the origin of a project. But if you open source it, you have to play the game. If changes need to be done before being merged, give a reason, discuss, exchange and come together to some outcome.
Moving projects forward is all about collaboration. -
@wild1145 @thisismissem we merge 250-300 PRs in a good month. Yes many of those are small, but it already takes a big part of the team’s time (which is still 2.5 people). We are trying to see how to improve this but PRs are opened at a faster rate than what we manage to process, even if we focus on them. So either we should merge without reviewing as much (bad) or have more people to review them (hard)
-
@thisismissem I had read about similar things happening years ago, but was really hoping the project had grown out of it.
I wish you the best and I hope it can be resolved amicably still. -
@CatherineFlick the direction I'd probably take for bulk actions is like an "add to cart" as you review reports, then at the end you go "yeah, these were all about that spam we dealt with, close"
-
-
@renchap @wild1145 right and I'm always happy to wait for reviews; what I'm not happy about is seeing stuff I put a lot of time & energy into getting duplicated for no good reason, especially when that person could've paid attention to the issues I'm working on years before I started my work, but didn't so much as even triage the tickets.
-
@thisismissem @Gargron @MartinVuilleme you all might be interested in a Contributions and Credit Policy, which would lay out exactly how a project handles the case of a maintainer rewriting a contributor's code. At least everyone will know what to expect and can decide whether or not they want to contribute to the project 🫠
-
I feel really sorry for you @thisismissem.
What is even more sad is to see that @Gargron doesn't even feel bothered to come out and say sorry. This is really shameful!
Thanks for raising this up to the whole fediverse.
And @Gargron, being the Founder/Lead Developer doesn't make you a god. Show some respect for people's contributions to your project and show up to give some explanation for your actions, mate!
-
The first time it happened, he apologised, but then seemingly went and did the exact same thing only a few hours later, after I'd explicitly told him I was working on allowing moderators to forward reports in a conversation where I'd said what I was working on and how different open PRs interact & why I'd made certain choices based on other work I knew was happening.
-
@vaurora @thisismissem Mastodon's contribution docs have been revamped this year: https://github.com/mastodon/.github/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md I have no expertise on this topic but I'm reading more guidance than policies there - no judgment intended.
I believe suggestions for improving this document would ideally land on @andypiper's desk. -
Yeah, those are the guidelines I follow when contributing, or at least try to.
-
@thisismissem Has @Gargron actually bothered responding to this? Because that feels like the most egregious part - him just carrying on and ignoring criticism, despite people talking openly about this toxic habit for several years now.
-
wendinoakland for Kamalareplied to Nathan A. Stine last edited by
@stinerman @thisismissem @Gargron Deeply embedded misogyny is tough to extinguish. Someone other than Emelia needs to weigh in & see what’s what.
