-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
-
gradio
Build and share delightful machine learning apps, all in Python. 🌟 Star to support our work!
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
Another possible outcome of "I gave commit rights to someone I didn't know": https://github.com/dominictarr/event-stream/issues/116
I created/maintained a popular project for years[^1], and recently passed ownership to someone else. It's been great seeing issues resolve, PRs merge, etc, after languishing for a while :)
[^1]: https://github.com/nccgroup/sobelow
I did this with every first committer to https://github.com/zladx/LADX-Disassembly : giving commit rights immediately (so that they can merge their first PR themselves).
I did wonders to foster a community of contributors, and get more patches coming. The CI ensures nothing breaks, and there never was any trust incident.
I know this is not point of the article but:
> The PR was bigger than what I felt I could sensibly review and, in honesty, my desire to go through the hours of work I could tell this would take for a project I no longer used was not stellar.
The PR: https://github.com/django-money/django-money/pull/2/files?di...
Do others share this sentiment?
This doesn't look like a particularly big PR to me, judging solely by the amount of code changed and the nature of the changes at first glance.
Are most of your PRs at work tiny, couple lines of code at most? Am I sloppy for not even consider reviewing this for "hours"? Are all code bases I have worked on sloppy because features often require changing more code than this?
I disagree hard with this – for instance I've recently needed to dig into the code for the Gradio library, and when PRs are like https://github.com/gradio-app/gradio/pull/3300 (and the merge commit's message is what it is) it's hard to understand why some decisions have been made when doing `git annotate` later on.