[adeebshihadeh]

"Open source has always worked on a system of trust and verify"

Not sure about the trust part. Ideally, you can evaluate the change on its own.

In my experience, I immediately know whether I want to close or merge a PR within a few seconds, and the hard part is writing the response to close it such that they don't come back again with the same stuff.

(I review a lot of PRs for openpilot - https://github.com/commaai/openpilot)

[jgauth]

Cool to see you here on HN! I just discovered the openpilot repository a few days ago and am having a great time digging through the codebase to learn how it all works. Msgq/cereal, Params, visionipc, the whole log message system in general. Some very interesting stuff in there.

[ngcazz]

When there's time, you review, when there isn't you trust...

[999900000999]

That's the issue here.

Even if I trust you, I still need to review your work before merging it.

Good people still make mistakes.

[stavros]

What is the definition of trust if you still have to verify? How does "trust" differ from "untrust" in that scenario?

[johnnyanmac]

trust resudes the verification I suppose. Getting a PR from a trusted contributor would probably have me do a quick scan for obvious mistakes. And they'd know to keep the PR's small and on the right branch to help facilitate a scan.

a new person with a big idea on the slightly wrong (but reasonable) channel would have more work in verification.

[adeebshihadeh]

What's the rush? Building good things takes time.

[johnnyanmac]

deadlines, money, attention. The usual things in industry.

[rafram]

[flagged]

[BowBun]

Why? I don't appreciate comments that cast doubt on decent technical contributors without any substance to back it up. It's a cheap shot from anonymity.

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

I'm not the parent but if you know you want to merge a PR "within a few seconds" then you're likely to be merging in bad changes.

If you had left it at know you want to reject a PR within a few seconds, that'd be fine.

Although with safety critical systems I'd probably want each contributor to have some experience in the field too.

[colinmcdermott]

Sounds like you misunderstood. They didn't say they are merging PRs after a few seconds. Just that the difference between a good one and a bad is often obvious after a few seconds. Edit: typos

[adeebshihadeh]

Exactly, every PR starts with:

1. What’s the goal of this PR and how does it further our project’s goals?

2. Is this vaguely the correct implementation?

Evaluating those two takes a few seconds. Beyond that, yes it takes a while to review and merge even a few line diff.

[stavros]

I'm not sure there are many ways to interpret "I know whether I want to merge a PR within a few seconds".

[jeremyjh]

Yet I also agree with GP.

[theshrike79]

"*WANT* to close or *WANT* to merge". Not WILL close or WILL merge.

You look at the PR and you know just by looking at it for a few seconds if it looks off or not.

Looks off -> "Want to close"

Write a polite response and close the issue.

Doesn't look off -> "Want to merge"

If we want to merge it, then of course you look at it more closely. Or label it and move on with the triage.

[latency-guy2]

What kind of things would you like to hear? The default is you hear nothing. Most black boxes work this way. And you similarly have no say in the matter.