71–80 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't hide the stars from Github itself though. Keeping as much preference data away from social networks as possible is not an unreasonable stance, IMHO.
You also can't hide the fact that you're browsed or even cloned the repository from GitHub, since it's on their servers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is at least partially automated. The issue was closed by a bot which requires a star to re-open.
That's clearly not the spirit of the T&C's of GitHub.
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.
Are you arguing that people should not be authoritarian on their own personal projects? To me this signals having healthy relationship with the project and knowing how to set boundaries (small as they may be) to avoid maintainer burnout.
1) The best possible reason is work-life balance, "hey I'm not getting paid for this," etc etc. I am not demanding that dae's maintainers accept the change simply because it's a good idea.
2) An unpleasant but probably acceptable reason is obstinance, stubbornness, etc. Maybe you're wrong, the feature is a bad idea. But even if you're right, sometimes you have to accept the aesthetic/ideological quirks of the devs.
3) The worst possible reason for denying a feature request is pettiness or narcissism, which is exactly what dae is doing. Perhaps the user had legitimate reasons for not starring the repo (GitHub "learns from" your stars and will suggest related repos in discovery, which can be annoying). But the idea of labelling CI tests as a "wontfix" until you get a stupid GitHub star is just horrendous open-source management.
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.
Don't you have to get like 500 karma before you can up/down vote on HN? Not far off right?
> No. Users should röstning for a story because they personally find it intellectually interesting, not because someone has content to promote. We penalize or ban submissions, accounts, and sites that break this rule, so please don't.
500 karma requirement is for downvoting, an anti-abuse measure, site-wide, not restricted by any other means. You don't need to upvote the submission to be able to vote on the comments on that submission.
Upvotes are available from the start.
So no, that's far off.
This behaviour is a clear as day extortion scheme yet you are aggressively defend it, which begs the question - why? Do you profit from similar schemes?
No clout, no work seems reasonable if on the nose. At least you don’t have to subscribe to a newsletter.
Imagine if I could demand that only people who have upvoted my comment could reply to it? I would get much less disagreeable replies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if I could demand that only people who have upvoted my comment could reply to it? I would get much less disagreeable replies.
Thats a false equivalence. Asking a repo maintainer to fix an issue or implement a new feature is requesting their voluntary work. This has nothing to do with silencing disagreement.
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.
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?
I like that it lets me open files without JavaScript enabled and search the code without logging in. I still use GitHub.com to read the issues on a couple repos though.
Example of what gitweb looks like: https://sourceware.org/git/ - There's also cgit which is similar: https://git.kernel.org/
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.
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?