I don’t think I have ever starred anything on Github. I think in this sort of situation I would add the star and remove it once the fix is added.
Why?
No star, No fix
31–40 of 104 posts
Re: No star, No fix
#32I don’t think I have ever starred anything on Github. I think in this sort of situation I would add the star and remove it once the fix is added.
I'll star a repo when I want to add it to my "favourite" or "interesting" repos - they are all listed under "Your stars". Is there a better way of achieving the same?
is lack of privacy your issue with the "your stars" page? consider a bookmarks manager.
Re: No star, No fix
#33Why 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 people don't like to drink a verification cans. > 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.
This is not a fair comparison. The user can comment, and create an issue on github
Re: No star, No fix
#34What are stars even worth? Certainly not the number of possible contributors this chases away (I see issue reporters as contributors as well since they’re spending effort finding/debugging what you would have to do at some point anyways)
All this for a measly 1500 stars
Re: No star, No fix
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's quid pro quo, isn't it. The repo is buying stars with bug reporting as currency. Which may well be against GitHub rules but more than that, it's a stupid thing to do . Bug reporting helps projects get better. They're blocking real bug reports until they get a star. Seems like self-harm to me.
> Bug reporting helps projects get better
There's many cases where that's not true and indeed low-quality bug reports hurt the projects from getting better, specially for mid-to-high popular solo projects.
Think about it in more familiar terms, are more job offers good for searching for a job? It might seems so, but only if you think about well-timed high quality offers. Suddenly getting spammed on your email, linkedin, etc. with dozens+ of low-quality job offers would def not be helpful.
Re: No star, No fix
#36I 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
No. I'm not going to break my own user pattern (I use stars as bookmarks, that's it. and I unstar pretty aggressively once I've done my business) to satisfy someone's ego. I'd much rather give a donation or bounty than go through that emotional manipulation. At least giving money is a business-neutral way to show demand for a feature (for a product I may or may not like).
Also, as a rebellious streak I am much less likely to star something that already has (proportionately) a bunch of stars.
Re: No star, No fix
#37This is ridiculous. Not every issue means someone likes or even uses the codebase. Automated scanners, fuzzers, security researchers, and people who found an issue via a dependent codebase, are all examples where an issue might be filed but the person otherwise has no interest. What a nonsense thing to have. It's not harmless, especially for large projects. It'll discourage and even runs the risk of artificially cove…
You are assuming such drive-by issues are actually valuable; to me it is not 100% self-evident, especially when most projects do not have shortage of issues anyways.
Re: No star, No fix
#38I'm of two minds on this: 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 thi…
You think stars before had some widely agreed upon common idea that was not chaotic?
Re: No star, No fix
#39Why 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
Maybe the intention is that people who are not interested in the project shouldn't be filing issues for it.
Re: No star, No fix
#40Reminds me of how how people give trivial stuff away for "free" in online marketplaces, but ask to be paid with a good review before handing it over. Do that a few hundred times and whoa, you're an amazingly rated seller!
Yeah, that's why I hate this model to begin with (and basically never leave reviews for software). If you have to ask/bribe me for a review, you ruined the point of what a review it. It is to let other prospector buyers know my genuine experience with the product or seller.
I don't mind being prompted for a review after the fact (because sure, I will forget otherwise), but it should be a prompt, not a beg.