I think the people responding are missing the point.
I've also submitted PRs that just fixed typos, and I've considered that a legit contribution.
But if I maintained a high-profile project right now, I'd at least take pause in thinking some of these accounts could be spam reputation-boosting accounts that only make comments/PRs to lend legitimacy to the account when it ultimately stars some artificially boosted repo.
And making it harder to detect star manipulation erodes the signals of trust which have been used on Github, and ultimately can be a security concern (historically I've looked at numbers of contributors, stars, downloads, and issues open/closed as a rough idea of how secure some npm dependency might be.. basically the idea that "more eyeballs" can mean slightly less chance of a massive security issue, especially in security-critical code like oauth libraries)
I don't know what the solution is here. Maybe requiring people sign a CLA like some corporate open source projects do is at least enough of a barrier
Honestly, who cares if the end result is the same? Their forked repo with the patch on still exists, the patch was incorporated in whatever way made sense to the original repo owner.
OK, a credit, but really, who cares? People can see what an accepted pull request consisted of, so I'm not sure they're kidding anybody in terms of boosting their reputation with credits for fixing typos.
All the same, I'm just glad to see people improve their presentation, especially typos.
I had the same thought. Is fixing typos not contributing? Should I not be submitting PRs to help with documentation/polish/etc? I never even thought that trying to help would be viewed as malicious.
Project maintainers frequently hold themselves back with amateur presentation, and that includes typos. It's hard to take some things seriously if they are failing at English, let alone their programming language of choice. It's sad because there's plenty of amazing open source out there, but the presentation is terribad.
IMO, the solution is simple: allow project maintainers to disable pointless metrics that would incentivize the GitHub equivocal to karma farming.
I also think the quality of comment on HN suffers for the fact that the karma score is visible metric to the end-user. Reddit particularly. The view count on tweets too.
Denying that PR and fixing it yourself is taking credit for others' work, and leaving it in is no good either. I don't see any upside to rejecting them. I'd be ashamed of myself for that.
I've also submitted PRs that just fixed typos, and I've considered that a legit contribution.
But if I maintained a high-profile project right now, I'd at least take pause in thinking some of these accounts could be spam reputation-boosting accounts that only make comments/PRs to lend legitimacy to the account when it ultimately stars some artificially boosted repo.
And making it harder to detect star manipulation erodes the signals of trust which have been used on Github, and ultimately can be a security concern (historically I've looked at numbers of contributors, stars, downloads, and issues open/closed as a rough idea of how secure some npm dependency might be.. basically the idea that "more eyeballs" can mean slightly less chance of a massive security issue, especially in security-critical code like oauth libraries)
I don't know what the solution is here. Maybe requiring people sign a CLA like some corporate open source projects do is at least enough of a barrier