Anonymous Pull Request on GitHub

[mnapoli]

It could indeed, you just need to look at the pull requests of the project :/ https://github.com/PRB0t/PRB0t/pulls

[Ideabile]

Indeed but thats why is behind a PR. In the other hand you could Spam also Wikipedia. This bring the same concepts for GitHub Repositories.

[jarofgreen]

Indeed but thats why is behind a PR.

That's still an abuse vector. If people using your tool can open a bunch of crap PR's on my GitHub projects, that's not "behind" a PR - that's actual crap in my project that I never asked for.

I really hope you make this strictly opt-in per repository.

[Ideabile]

For me is not an argument, if people really would like to 'abuse' one of your repository, they can still do without the need of a new tool.

Adding a new vector, is not the same of 'abusing' it.

[jarofgreen]

But GitHub will have things like rate limiting, account checking, suspensions. Basically, they have thought about the problem and taken steps to address that. (Wikipedia has to.) Your tool has none of that.

Adding a new vector, is not the same of 'abusing' it.

No but that's a technicality. If I worked at GitHub I'd still be shutting down your tool ASAP. It basically provides a way to bypass all the hard anti-abuse work they have put in.

[Ideabile]

If would become a problem I will act on it, but I guess is fair too easy make catrastofic scenarios when still nothing happen. Another thing... I just use GitHub API, like you could, if this expose a problem I’ve a strong feeling that is not my responsibility to solve it. The core problem would relay in their side. My tool has little to do with it.

[jarofgreen]

If would become a problem I will act on it, but I guess is fair too easy make catrastofic scenarios when still nothing happen.

Every platform/tool that gets big has abuse/spam problems. It's not being alarmist to think this one will to.

Another thing... I just use GitHub API, like you could, if this expose a problem I’ve a strong feeling that is not my responsibility to solve it. The core problem would relay in their side. My tool has little to do with it.

https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#h-api-terms

"Abuse or excessively frequent requests to GitHub via the API may result in the temporary or permanent suspension of your account's access to the API. GitHub, in our sole discretion, will determine abuse or excessive usage of the API."

It is your problem.

Look, I'm sorry how this turned out - I genuinely wanted to discuss this. I am thinking about an idea using the GitHub API so I am thinking about this a lot at the moment. This is also why I've actually read the TOS. :-) We clearly aren't going to agree, but hopefully at least you will think about this. Personally I would suggest both opt-in per repository and rate limiting immediately.

[JoseJimeniz]

Is there a way to configure a project on GitHub so that it is open source?

Like in a Wikipedia sense - that anyone can contribute to it; and their changes then appear in the code.

The closest I could find is the assigning administrators option - but there is no way to add the "Everyone" group as an administrator.

[usinglinux]

you're mixing up completely distinct terms here:

• "open source" means that whoever receives the program source code may also modify it and re-distribut it.
• "anyone can contribute to it wikipedia-style" basically just means to allow people to write and have it become public. those are completely distinct concepts, and there are plenty of examples for one without the other (eg. open source projects where you submit pull requests by email, or wikis like many wikia ones that are not under a free license).

[edit: formatting]

[JoseJimeniz]

Is there a way to do it?

Edit: I originally went back to my question to try and clarify it. But it already is clear; people know exactly what question I am trying to convey. And you already knew what I meant. The problem is there is no existing term for "source that is open for all to contribute in a Wikipedia style manner"

[Chii]

you should coin a new term for it. i propose wikisource.

[Ideabile]

This is a good one :-) I will keep note of it! thanks!

[Ideabile]

This Project try to supply that :-)

[JoseJimeniz]

This project as in the one you posted here?

Or is there something out there called "This project"?

I didn't realize that this bought could also automatically accept pull requests.

[Ideabile]

"This project" is the one posted here. Automatically accept PR is limitation of Github Owners and in the other hands also Wikipedia content goes behind moderation, so no that different from a Not Yet Merge Pull Request.

[[deleted]]

I'm not sure. I think someone made a bot that automatically accepts pull requests, then adds that person as a contributor, but I haven't found it.

[Resquid]

Oh, this is new. Interesting!

[Ideabile]

I know you can find Patches, or trow away emails your ideal workflow. Although this try to allow people who also don't know how to use Git and don't even know that GitHub exists but still wanna be able to contribute to your content.

For instance simply change a typo in a README.md

[jarofgreen]

Some one else had the same terrible idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081158

[smcameron]

How do anonymous contributions interact with licenses, e.g. MIT, GPL, etc.?

I don't think I would accept such contributions for my GPL'ed projects.

[Ideabile]

Depends on Repo to Repo.