11–20 of 104 posts
I agree with this. If you use some software (and its author cares about internet points), you can at least give it that star. It's better than paying with money, and if you are requesting a feature it makes even more sense to pay with a single click of a mouse. Show some appreciation, people
I wonder if this goes against github's "no automated starring" policy [0] (that people have been banned for in the past). Maybe "coordinated inauthentic activity" ? Either way, feels sleazy. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...
1) it's a response to a user's request, i.e., not initiated by the repo author
2) it depends on consensus of the user.
3) it's not automated (most of the items from the policy are related to automation).
4) the repo author has no obligation whatsoever of maintaining the project. He is not paid or forced to do it.
5) if the user really wants to apply this change or disagrees with this practice, he/she can always fork it.
That said, I understand that it may still not feel "fair" compared to other projects that don't follow this practice. Or the feeling of "wanting to help but you're asked to do some things first".
Companies already do that to accept your pull requests though [0], which takes way longer than giving a star - and I didn't see a complaint about it on HN
I wonder if this goes against github's "no automated starring" policy [0] (that people have been banned for in the past). Maybe "coordinated inauthentic activity" ? Either way, feels sleazy. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...
I fail to see a reason where it would be a violation because of the following reasons: 1) it's a response to a user's request, i.e., not initiated by the repo author 2) it depends on consensus of the user. 3) it's not automated (most of the items from the policy are related to automation). 4) the repo author has no obligation whatsoever of maintaining the project. He is not paid or forced to do it. 5) if the user rea…
Why the negative sentiment against this? It doesn't cost people anything to star a project. Whether it is a PR or not, the maintainer still had to review and maintain the code and that is time they will spend. The more stars a project gets, the more support it gets. It's not like you pay for stars or it is burdensome to click on the star button.
How do toy magically get more support if all projects simply demand more stars and get them?
I wonder if this goes against github's "no automated starring" policy [0] (that people have been banned for in the past). Maybe "coordinated inauthentic activity" ? Either way, feels sleazy. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...
I fail to see a reason where it would be a violation because of the following reasons: 1) it's a response to a user's request, i.e., not initiated by the repo author 2) it depends on consensus of the user. 3) it's not automated (most of the items from the policy are related to automation). 4) the repo author has no obligation whatsoever of maintaining the project. He is not paid or forced to do it. 5) if the user rea…
Why the negative sentiment against this? It doesn't cost people anything to star a project. Whether it is a PR or not, the maintainer still had to review and maintain the code and that is time they will spend. The more stars a project gets, the more support it gets. It's not like you pay for stars or it is burdensome to click on the star button.
Because it artificially bloats the star count so that it no longer represents how many people are interested in the project.... Although if you've filed an issue you kind of are invested already
If GH had levels of stars it might have be been better.
Can't projects say they'll only support people who really like the project or are people thinking OSS comes with entitlements for unpaying users.
Why the negative sentiment against this? It doesn't cost people anything to star a project. Whether it is a PR or not, the maintainer still had to review and maintain the code and that is time they will spend. The more stars a project gets, the more support it gets. It's not like you pay for stars or it is burdensome to click on the star button.
> It's not like you pay for stars or it is burdensome to click on the star button.
Imagine being allowed to comment here only after [starring] something. It's not like you pay for [stars] or it is burdensome to click on the [star] button.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do toy magically get more support if all projects simply demand more stars and get them?
If you like it starting it makes sense, if you don't why open issues and do pr's?
1) Good: This adds "just" a touch of friction to things. You can't just do a drive-by on the project like so many thanks to ill-advised "social good" corporate review policies (screw you, Google, for pioneering that). You have to at least star it which at least signifies some level of commitment, identity, and existence.
2) Bad: This causes an inflation war between those projects that do this organically and those that force people to star them. It squashes the signal in the idea of stars.
Github is going to have to remove identity from the stars if they want to stop this from descending into chaos.