[_skhan_]

I feel like the approach the author laid out near the end is passive and would lead to one assuming they have retained some knowledge. At the most, it would help someone avoid a similar bug/mistake.

A better approach would be to checkout the repo at a commit before the fix and try to replicate the solution in a short amount of time. You would then build context around what the contributor had to figure out and in the worst case you'll have a "gold standard" solution to fallback on (assuming the PR was successful).

[jcubic]

I don't think it's good idea, because it will be wasted time. You can use your time to contribute to the project after reading some closed PR, try to use your knowledge to contribute.

For me it's best advice how to start with Open Source, and be sure that your PR will be accepted. And as side effect you will learn a lot, but this is with any practice like with your idea, but you will make project better. Your idea is as worthless as doing LettCode or similar.

[_skhan_]

How can it be wasted time if you're able to build context and a mental model of the repo? The whole point is to "rapidly improve at any programming language" right? Sure, you're not going to contribute net new code but you'll be primed and ready to contribute in the future while achieving your original goal. Whether or not this works, I don't know. But dismissing it as worthless is kind of a stretch and offensive. But thanks for your opinion.

[christophergs]

This guy deliberate practices