Pull requests are the lifeblood of collaborative software development, often bringing valuable changes or new features. Sometimes, merging them is a straightforward decision. However, there are situations where I may decide not to merge a pull request, and I’d like to explain why.
Features Aren’t Always Missing by Accident
When a pull request introduces an unexpected feature or changes the behavior of the software, it can raise questions. Often, there are reasons why the software doesn’t already include that feature or behavior.
Perhaps the maintainers don’t need the feature. If it were critical, it would likely have been prioritized already. While your contribution might be genuinely aimed at improving the software for everyone, the lack of prior discussion can suggest a different motivation.
The Hidden Cost of Pull Requests
In many cases, contributors submit pull requests to avoid maintaining their own forks. This is understandable—forking creates extra work. However, integrating changes into the main project passes the maintenance burden to the maintainers, potentially indefinitely.
Even if you care deeply about your contribution initially, your involvement may wane over time. Once your immediate need is met or your focus shifts to other projects, you might no longer maintain your changes. Meanwhile, project maintainers inherit the responsibility to support a feature they might not use, ensuring compatibility with future updates and satisfying users who rely on it.
This ongoing commitment can block development of other features or require trade-offs to avoid breaking changes.
Style, Documentation, and Compatibility Challenges
Even a well-intentioned pull request often introduces inconsistencies:
-
Coding Style: Open-source projects rarely enforce strict coding standards, but maintainers are familiar with the existing conventions. Your code, even if well-written, may not align, leaving maintainers to either rewrite it or accept an inconsistent codebase.
-
Documentation: Pull requests rarely include thorough updates to user-facing documentation. While the contributor understands the changes, the project serves a broader audience, and clear documentation is essential for them. This task typically falls to the maintainers.
-
Cross-Platform Compatibility: Projects often aim to support multiple platforms or configurations. Your pull request might inadvertently introduce issues, requiring maintainers to test and adapt the changes to ensure they work universally.
-
Review Overhead: Reviewing pull requests can be more time-consuming than writing the code from scratch. A simple change can involve multiple rounds of feedback, conflict resolution, and additional testing to ensure security and reliability.
The Emotional Weight of Declining a Pull Request
Behind every pull request is someone who invested time and effort. Declining it feels personal, even when it isn’t. The work might be excellent, but if it doesn’t align with the project’s priorities or would create undue maintenance burden, it might not be the right fit.
A Better Approach: Discussion Before Submission
Instead of submitting a pull request without prior discussion, consider opening an issue or starting a conversation about your proposed changes. This allows maintainers to evaluate the idea, provide feedback, and ensure it aligns with the project’s direction before significant work is done. Collaboration at this stage often leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.
Final Thoughts
If your pull request isn’t merged, it doesn’t mean your contribution wasn’t valuable. It might simply reflect the challenges of maintaining a project over time. By focusing on collaboration and communication, we can build software that meets user needs while remaining sustainable for maintainers.
Please don’t take it personally if your pull request is declined or reimplemented. These decisions are made with the long-term health of the project in mind—a benefit to all users, including you.