Repository navigation
docs(readme): open the project to external contributions - #1913
Conversation
The Contributing section said Lucky was "a solo personal project — not seeking external contributors", then immediately listed five steps for how to contribute. Anyone reading the first sentence stopped there. It was also already false. Adolanium and Re-Gouveia-QA have open PRs, and CONTRIBUTING.md has been welcoming the whole time, so the README was the only thing turning people away. Rewritten to say contributions are welcome and to answer what a first-time contributor actually needs: where to start, that a repro case counts as a contribution, and that asking before building is fine. Points at ready-for-human rather than `good first issue` or `help wanted` because those labels exist but currently have zero open issues, and sending a newcomer to an empty list is worse than sending them nowhere. Worth labelling some issues for that. Also sets expectations honestly: review latency varies, red CI is information rather than rejection, and bot reviewers are suggestions to weigh. Kept the promise that matters, which is a real answer rather than silence.
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe README’s Contributing section now provides expanded guidance for finding issues, preparing changes, opening pull requests, interpreting CI feedback, and understanding the review process. ChangesContribution Guide
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Warning Billing warning: we have not been able to collect payment for this subscription for more than 72 hours. Please update the payment method or pay any pending invoices in Billing to avoid service interruption. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Failed to generate code suggestions for PR |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Line 358: Update the contribution guidance sentence in README.md to use the
explicit subject “If you are unsure whether an idea fits…” while preserving the
existing advice to open an issue before building it.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 4442179a-9065-45f4-b03e-eca5163b849d
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
README.md
|
|
Declining the "Not sure whether an idea fits?" → "If you are unsure whether an idea fits…" suggestion. It is grammatically the more formal construction, but formality is the thing this PR is deliberately removing. The section exists to make a stranger feel like opening an issue is low-stakes, and a direct question reads like a person talking; "If you are unsure whether…" reads like a policy document. That is the register the old "not seeking external contributors" line was written in, and it is part of why it landed badly. Keeping the current phrasing. Resolving the thread. |
#1913 pointed at ready-for-human because `good first issue` had zero open issues and sending a newcomer to an empty list is worse than sending them nowhere. It now has two (#1882, #1914), and it is the label GitHub surfaces in its own contributor-discovery UI, so it goes first. Also states what separates the two tiers: good-first-issue means you can start without asking anything; ready-for-human assumes more repo context.
1 participant
The problem
The Contributing section opened with:
and then immediately listed five steps for how to contribute. Anyone who read the first sentence never reached the second.
It was also already false. Adolanium and Re-Gouveia-QA have open PRs right now, and
CONTRIBUTING.mdhas been welcoming the whole time — the README was the only thing in the repo turning people away.The change
Rewritten to say contributions are welcome and to answer what a first-time contributor actually needs:
Plus honest expectations: review latency varies, a red CI check is information rather than rejection, and the bot reviewers (CodeRabbit, cubic, Sonar) are suggestions to weigh rather than orders. That last one matters — a newcomer seeing three bots pile onto their first PR could easily read it as the maintainer being hostile.
Kept the one promise worth making: every PR gets a real answer, and a rejection comes with reasoning rather than silence.
One thing that needs you
I pointed at
ready-for-human(3 open) rather thangood first issueorhelp wanted, because those two labels exist but have zero open issues:Sending a newcomer to an empty list is worse than sending them nowhere. Labelling a handful of genuinely self-contained issues as
good first issueis probably the highest-leverage next step for attracting contributors, and it needs your judgement on which ones qualify.Summary by cubic
Opened the project to external contributions by rewriting the README Contributing section. Adds a clear starting path via
ready-for-humanissues, treats repros as valid contributions, asks contributors to check ideas before building, and clarifies PR steps plus CI/bot feedback expectations.Written for commit b86978f. Summary will update on new commits.
Summary by CodeRabbit