<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jul 15, 2021, 15:58 by gravitystorm@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 18:55, Michal Migurski <mike@teczno.com> wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div><br></div><div>The bars in blue are composed solely of commits from core committers and a handful of bots vs. PRs in green with any other participants included. We see that community PRs are accepted approximately half the time, while owner-only PRs are merged almost always. We also see a long-standing pattern of community changes taking multiple weeks to merge.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I find these results deeply unsurprising. You've highlighted that PRs<br></div><div>from bots (i.e. dependabot) are quick and easy to merge. What else<br></div><div>would you expect here? You've also highlighted that PRs made by<br></div><div>maintainers are usually merged quickly. So again, is it really<br></div><div>surprising that maintainers are good at writing PRs that pass the<br></div><div>tests, are easy to review, and likely to be merged without need for<br></div><div>changes? Isn't that likely to be one of the abilities expected of a<br></div><div>maintainer?<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I would add that situation where there are people who consistently<br></div><div dir="auto">make high quality PRs and are not becoming maintainers would be a bit weird.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So nonmaintainers PRs are very likely to be of lower quality and/or get<br></div><div dir="auto">abandoned and so on - as people making high quality PRs are typically<br></div><div dir="auto">becoming maintainers.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As result both groups are self selecting, and such differences are to be expected.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">To have results worth looking at it would be necessary to at least attempt to<br></div><div dir="auto">compare with other projects of a similar size/complexity.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Or maybe all projects across Github?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Either way existence of difference is fully expected and it by itself proves exactly nothing.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe it would be better to look how long PRs wait for maintainers? Though manual review<br></div><div dir="auto">would be needed here.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote>My conclusion from these graphs is that OSM’s software is not encouraging a healthy level of community involvement.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's a heck of a conclusion to make from two poorly constructed charts.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I would also add that - if I understood right - analysed repos were under<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap">https://github.com/openstreetmap</a> and results got extended it to "OSM’s software"<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Even if something applies to <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/openstreetmap</a> repos<br></div><div dir="auto">it does not necessarily apply to JOSM, <a href="https://github.com/facebookincubator/RapiD/">https://github.com/facebookincubator/RapiD/</a><br></div><div dir="auto">and other OSM's software.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>I put in a ton of effort, week in and week out, year after year to<br></div><div>make it easier to contribute<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Thanks for that!<br></div> </body>
</html>