zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. adeebs+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-08 18:41:03
"Open source has always worked on a system of trust and verify"

Not sure about the trust part. Ideally, you can evaluate the change on its own.

In my experience, I immediately know whether I want to close or merge a PR within a few seconds, and the hard part is writing the response to close it such that they don't come back again with the same stuff.

(I review a lot of PRs for openpilot - https://github.com/commaai/openpilot)

replies(3): >>rafram+B1 >>ngcazz+79 >>jgauth+an
2. rafram+B1[view] [source] 2026-02-08 18:50:58
>>adeebs+(OP)
[flagged]
replies(2): >>latenc+B2 >>BowBun+D5
◧◩
3. latenc+B2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 18:57:59
>>rafram+B1
What kind of things would you like to hear? The default is you hear nothing. Most black boxes work this way. And you similarly have no say in the matter.
◧◩
4. BowBun+D5[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 19:18:08
>>rafram+B1
Why? I don't appreciate comments that cast doubt on decent technical contributors without any substance to back it up. It's a cheap shot from anonymity.
replies(1): >>8n4vid+x8
◧◩◪
5. 8n4vid+x8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 19:35:24
>>BowBun+D5
I'm not the parent but if you know you want to merge a PR "within a few seconds" then you're likely to be merging in bad changes.

If you had left it at know you want to reject a PR within a few seconds, that'd be fine.

Although with safety critical systems I'd probably want each contributor to have some experience in the field too.

replies(2): >>colinm+Lc >>theshr+Dt
6. ngcazz+79[view] [source] 2026-02-08 19:38:53
>>adeebs+(OP)
When there's time, you review, when there isn't you trust...
replies(2): >>999900+cb >>adeebs+em
◧◩
7. 999900+cb[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 19:52:01
>>ngcazz+79
That's the issue here.

Even if I trust you, I still need to review your work before merging it.

Good people still make mistakes.

replies(1): >>stavro+en
◧◩◪◨
8. colinm+Lc[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 20:02:26
>>8n4vid+x8
Sounds like you misunderstood. They didn't say they are merging PRs after a few seconds. Just that the difference between a good one and a bad is often obvious after a few seconds. Edit: typos
replies(2): >>adeebs+2m >>stavro+hn
◧◩◪◨⬒
9. adeebs+2m[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 21:08:13
>>colinm+Lc
Exactly, every PR starts with:

1. What’s the goal of this PR and how does it further our project’s goals?

2. Is this vaguely the correct implementation?

Evaluating those two takes a few seconds. Beyond that, yes it takes a while to review and merge even a few line diff.

◧◩
10. adeebs+em[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 21:09:45
>>ngcazz+79
What's the rush? Building good things takes time.
replies(1): >>johnny+rx1
11. jgauth+an[view] [source] 2026-02-08 21:16:38
>>adeebs+(OP)
Cool to see you here on HN! I just discovered the openpilot repository a few days ago and am having a great time digging through the codebase to learn how it all works. Msgq/cereal, Params, visionipc, the whole log message system in general. Some very interesting stuff in there.
◧◩◪
12. stavro+en[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 21:16:55
>>999900+cb
What is the definition of trust if you still have to verify? How does "trust" differ from "untrust" in that scenario?
replies(1): >>johnny+mx1
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. stavro+hn[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 21:17:40
>>colinm+Lc
I'm not sure there are many ways to interpret "I know whether I want to merge a PR within a few seconds".
replies(1): >>jeremy+mr
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. jeremy+mr[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 21:48:33
>>stavro+hn
Yet I also agree with GP.
◧◩◪◨
15. theshr+Dt[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-08 22:03:43
>>8n4vid+x8
"*WANT* to close or *WANT* to merge". Not WILL close or WILL merge.

You look at the PR and you know just by looking at it for a few seconds if it looks off or not.

Looks off -> "Want to close"

Write a polite response and close the issue.

Doesn't look off -> "Want to merge"

If we want to merge it, then of course you look at it more closely. Or label it and move on with the triage.

◧◩◪◨
16. johnny+mx1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-09 08:43:25
>>stavro+en
trust resudes the verification I suppose. Getting a PR from a trusted contributor would probably have me do a quick scan for obvious mistakes. And they'd know to keep the PR's small and on the right branch to help facilitate a scan.

a new person with a big idea on the slightly wrong (but reasonable) channel would have more work in verification.

◧◩◪
17. johnny+rx1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-09 08:43:59
>>adeebs+em
deadlines, money, attention. The usual things in industry.
[go to top]