|
|
|
|
|
by relix
4818 days ago
|
|
I once submitted a pull request to add a feature to a popular OSS library. It got several "thumbs up", was actually useful, didn't change the API and had test coverage. I put a lot of time into making it nice and clean, in my opinion a perfect pull request. Two years later they closed it with a comment saying one of the more senior contributors added code that did what my code did (except 2 years later) so mine wasn't necessary anymore. They never merged my changes. Objectively I can say what they did was cold but logical in the end, since it incorporated the change better into how they saw the next version of the library and they can trust the more senior contributor more. Subjectively it really hurt. It was one of my first contributions to open source and it definitely unmotivated me to do any others. It was in limbo for 2 years until they finally implemented it in another way, instead of just accepting the pull request for now until they could change it. I don't hold a grudge against the people involved since I've used their code a lot and am thankful for their indirect help using their libraries. It just felt shitty. |
|
Then again, if I can't sell them successfully on why my way would be better ... maybe I should just have accepted their code.
This takes more time over the short term but in the long term lets me give out more commit bits, which I regard as a net win.