This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I don't contribute to open source projects (not talented enough at the moment, I can do basic stuff for myself sometimes) but I wonder if you can implement some kind of requirement to prove that your code worked to avoid this issue.
Like, you're submitting a request that fixes X thing or adds Y feature, show us it doing it before we review it in full.
The trouble is just volume and time, even just reading through the description and "proof it works" would take a few minutes, and if you're getting 10s of these a day it can easily eat up time to find the ones worth reviewing. (and these volunteers are working in their free time after a normal work day, so wasting 15 or 30 minutes out of the volunteers one or two hours of work is throwing away a lot of time.
Plus, when volunteering is annoying the volunteers stop showing up which kills projects
Time to become a plumber!
A lot of programmers with thigh-high striped socks should take one for the team and take back Godot and such. Seriously!
Stupid question:
Are there really no safe guards to the merging process except for human oversight?
Isnt there some "In Review State" where people who want to see the experimental stuff, can pull this experimental stuff and if enough™ people say "This new shit is okay" it gets merged?
So the Main Project doesnt get poisoned and everyone can still contribute in a way and those who want to Experiment can test the New Stuff.
Most projects don't have enough people or external interest for that kind of process.
It would be possible to establish some tooling like that, but standard forges don't provide that. So it'd feel cumbersome.
And in the end you're back at having contributors, trustworthiness, and quality control. Because testing and reviewing are contributions too. You don't want just a popularity contest (I want this) nor blindly trust unknown contribute.
It is my understanding that pull requests say "Hey, I forked and modified your project. Look at it and consider adopting my changes in your project." So anyone who wants to look at the "experimental stuff" can just pull that fork. Someone in charge of the main branch decides if and when to merge pull requests.
The problem becomes the volume of requests; they're kinda getting DDOS'd.
Get off of Github and I bet you those drop to nearly zero. Using Github is a choice with all of the AI slop it enables. They aren't getting rid of it any time soon. The want agents and people making shitty code PRs—that's money sent Microsoft's way in their minds.
Now that they see what the cost of using Github is maybe Godot will (re?)consider codeberg or a self-hosted forgejo instance that they control.
Sounds like they need a bot to check the code for AI telltales. Send AI to kill AI.
People want AI, people get AI! Force feed your self with AI, thats what you wanted right? ask your self, what innovations have AI brought to us, apart from money to big corporate companies.
I've been writting a lot of code with ai - for every half hour the ai needs to write the code I need a full week to revise it into good code. If you don't do that hard work the ai is going to overwhelm the reviewers with garbage
