41–50 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Seems obnoxious without a doubt, and particularly egregious if reporter is bringing/offering a fix. But maybe I should try to be open-minded about this? Issues that provide even badly written bug reports are probably doing a service to the project itself. Feature requests OTOH might just be internet strangers requesting free labor on someone's generously-public yet resource-starved passion project. In the 2nd case, a…
> if everyone does this, it will erode the signal of what stars are supposed to mean. What signal? To me, starring a Github project means "I'm interested enough in this project to want to be able to find it again". That's a significantly lower bar than the poster had here, of "I've a new feature proposed for this project, and I'm even interested in implementing it myself if the maintainer agrees". There's a loose cor…
Well if you're policy is to keep track of issues based on who stars the project, having a lot of stars means poor quality then.
I kind of understand their twisted logic but at the end of the day it just doesn't feel right.
There are plenty of projects who do not need this kind of policy to have a lot of stars.
No clout, no work seems reasonable if on the nose. At least you don’t have to subscribe to a newsletter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is lack of privacy your issue with the "your stars" page? consider a bookmarks manager.
You can make the profile private and it’ll hide the stars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, linked…
So it's ok to report low quality bugs as long as you give stars?
I know that's not your argument, but this is what this thread is about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
My point exactly, if you don't think it's worth starring why even use it let along issues and pr's. 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.
- it's a dependency downstream and it's breaking my actual project.
- I'm in evaluation/research phase for multiple repos and am not committed to that specific tool. Actions like this actively make me NOT want to star such behavior, nor even use the tool if I can help it
- because I don't fundamentally use stars as a popularity stick and don't care. I'd rather you prompt me to post a bounty or donation instead. Yes, that's how much I hate that system; I will pay money to not be involved in it.
>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.
if you ignore the meta-gaming reasons this tactic exists, sure. I'd rather just pay the project directly instead be a part of a statitic that says "we got X stars on our repo please fund us" VC pitches.
Gaining a permanent reputation for petty authoritarianism, even with contributors who clearly want to help versus gaining one (1) point on GitHub Truly craven that this is coming from an automated bot. The extent to which social media likes have broken peoples' brains is something to behold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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