We don't always have to solve problems with technology. Sometimes you can just tell people things.
I like the idea of crafting tools that allow the user to accomplish something that would ideally not need software.
Even better if the most prominent feature of a necessarily complex software solution, is the behavior to the user as if it is absent completely.
I wish they'd allow making issues and pull requests sponsor only. Could enable a business model.
Is this some sort of unwritten agreement? When I was setting up my sponsor page, I explored the sponsor pages of other users for ideas. I don't think there were many sponsorship tiers with special features. Some people offered advertising space on the README, others offered access to an exclusive Discord channel, most just thanked the sponsor.
I'm still new at this so I wouldn't know. I only ever had one sponsor. Happened organically after my work was independently posted here on HN once.
Edit: https://pocketbase.io/faq/
Look at the bottom, just an example how sponsors/donors may affect you.
AI often doesn't do things your way, but if your doing something for yourself you usually care more about the goal than the technicalities. Also AI working on a hobby code base is less prone to overcomplication since it basically copies what you've wrote yourself.
In terms of productivity it's having something of a mixed effect. It gives me very clear ideas and direction but at the same time everything just feels done afterwards. All that's left is actually executing the tasks which is... Boring.
I'm not sure I trust ChatGPT to do it for me like an agent. The examples it gives me are never quite right. It's probably a lot better at generating frontend javascript code than programming language interpreter code.
I think you can disable issues but not pull requests, as far as I know.
It might be helpful to allow to disable pull requests too, and possibly to hide how many stars/watchers there are and hide the list of forks (people could still star, watch, and/or fork the repository, but they would not be listed on that repository if the display of those features are disabled).
Whether or not GitHub accepts these ideas, it can be an idea that other services (e.g. Codeberg) can consider adding such options if they want to do (as well as other things).
And if the README explicitly says the project isn’t open to contributors nor feature requests, then you’re even less likely to see that (and have a very valid reason to politely close any issues on the unlikely scenario that someone might create one).
The vast majority of stuff on GitHub goes unnoticed by the vast majority of people. And only a very small minority of people ever interact with the few projects they do pull from GH.
This is not my personal experience nor the experience of a number of folks that I know personally. I think it's pretty hard to generalize about this.
> The vast majority of stuff on GitHub goes unnoticed by the vast majority of people. And only a very small minority of people ever interact with the few projects they do pull from GH.
So what? It's probably not going to impact you, so it's okay and we just have to deal with it? I reject that logic entirely.
I think it’s pretty easy to generalise because public repositories are public, so the data is available.
The vast majority of repositories on GH has between 0 and 10 stars and no issues raised by other people.
Even people (like myself) who have repos with thousands of stars and other GH members “following” them, will have other repos with in GH with zero interaction.
> So what? It's probably not going to impact you, so it's okay and we just have to deal with it? I reject that logic entirely.
That’s a really uncharitable interpretation of my comment.
A more charitable way of reading it would be:
“Worrying about a minor problem that is easily remediated and likely wouldn’t happen anyway isn’t a strong reason to miss out.”
If we were talking about something high stakes, where one’s career, family or life would be affected; then I’d understand. But the worst outcome here is an assumption gets proven true and they delete the repo.
Please don’t take this as a persuasive argument that someone should do something they don’t want to do. If people don’t want to share their code then that’s their choice.
Instead this is responding to the comment that your friend DID want to share but was scared of a theoretical but low risk and unlikely scenario. That nervousness isn’t irrational, but it’s also not a good reason by itself to miss out on doing something you said they did want to do.
If however, that was really just an excuse and they actually had no real desire to share their code, then they should just be honest and say that. There’s no obligation that people need to open source their pet projects so they don’t need to justify it with arguments about GHs lack controls. They can just said “I don’t want my code public” and that’s a good enough reason itself.
"No one can make you [merge PRs] without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt, probably