Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwfaraway135 | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't it make much more sense to just reject _low_ quality PR's?

On an unrelated note, I lost all respect and eagerness to try it out after the drama.

They want people who will be around to maintain the features as well. There have been several areas of the project that have languished at times because no current maintainer had the capacity or familiarity to move it forward.

Also, what drama?

I get that, but again this seems like a quality problem. As for commitment a simple sorting algorithm which prioritizes repeat contributors should solve that.

Google Godot drama 2024, for some top-notch community mismanagement classes.

All I found is something to do with Discord. Been using Godot for years I have no idea what drama you’re talking about.

As far as I can remember. There was a pro LGBT tweet that some people didn't like. And the moderator decided to blanket ban everyone who disagreed with the tweet. Some of the banned people had reasonable objections like: regardless if they agree with something or not politics and OS should be separated, and were still banned, including on GitHub. Others had objections also shared with the Godot founder and were still banned. There were some other things also but can't remember the details.

LGBT people aren’t “politics”.

Though I guess if your stance is “these people should have less rights” then it is politics, but in that case I don’t see the drama for banning people.

Of course it's politics, you have billions of people thinking otherwise than what is accepted in the west.

This doesn't mean I agree with them, but pretending this isn't a complex and very large issue with multiple facets is just wrong.

The drama is in a nutshell someone made a really stupid post claiming only the woke use game engines. Godot community manager said guess that makes us woke (paraphrased), conservatives went batshit, got blocked on Twitter or elsewhere for going insane and a few innocent tweets got caught in the crossfire. Someone went off and made a fork of Godot as a 'non-political version' which went in the only obvious direction it could go.

Basically some incredibly stupid highschool level drama fed by the worst YouTubers you can think of. People vaguepost about it because it's so dumb.

The fork also had its own drama, resulting in one of the more active developers of the fork, plus the guy who helped kick off the original drama, splitting off to create yet another fork. Both forks are still active, I believe. It was all very silly

Most of it was silly, but being banned on github for a reasonable objection is still very tyrannical.

From what I recall, based on what a Godot developer wrote at the time, nobody got banned from GitHub for "a reasonable objection". The only people who got banned from GitHub were those who posted abuse there, after a few people had gotten blocked by the Godot Twitter account

The problem here is the definition of abuse. And I don't mean to say that I'm 100% sure Godot overstepped in the github ban cases, but if they can ban people for criticizing them I wouldn't be surprised if they overstepped there too.

No, it wouldn't. The goal of reviewing PRs is to mentor and find new maintainers who will eventually replace the current ones.

You just can't expect someone who isn't willing enough to write one good PR to be willing to become a good maintainer.

> write one good PR

is about quality not AI which is exactly my point.

Another problem, AI allows many people to submit PRs that may look viable with very low effort. So you get a lot more code to review, often submitted by people who are not actually familiar with the codebase. So they may not even be able to make requested changes to their patches. Combine that with AI's verbosity. The maintainers drown in noise.

In order to reject low quality PRs, you first have to determine that they are low quality. Guess what LLM-generated code is really good at hiding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com