08:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32074: contrib: Make deterministic-coverage error messages more readable (master...2503-det-cov-err) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32074

13:02 <pinheadmz> darosior i tried to join that channel :-P

13:03 <pinheadmz> https://script.savingsatoshi.com/

14:03 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sekomer opened pull request #32077: style: Fix spacing in script.h for OP_TRUE definition (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32077

15:59 <darosior> nice!

19:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko closed pull request #32077: style: Fix spacing in script.h for OP_TRUE definition (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32077

20:11 <pinheadmz> maflcko how do you decide if a typo or other minor PR should be closed? sometimes contributors pile on ACKs even if its just changing a single word

20:12 <pinheadmz> i guess the Q is, do new contirbutors who start by fixing a word come back and add something more meaningful

20:51 <darosior> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#refactoring states "Pull requests that refactor the code should not be made by new contributors. It requires a certain level of experience to know where the code belongs to and to understand the full ramification [...]. Trivial pull requests or pull requests that refactor the code with

20:51 <darosior> no clear benefits may be immediately closed by the maintainers to reduce unnecessary workload on reviewing."

22:26 <fjahr> pinheadmz: I think the answer to your question is no because the contributors that make meaningful contributions and stay around for longer (the people we want) don't start out like this. At least I haven't observed any case of this. It's just demonstrating a very different mindset. Working on core requires interest in deep thinking and a lot of patience, fixing a typo is the polar opposite of that.

22:26 <fjahr> But if anyone here has started out by fixing typos please speak up, I am happy to be proven wrong :)

22:32 <fjahr> And I would appeal to the contributors that pile on ACKs on such changes to get their dopamine hits from reviewing something a bit more meaningful, no offense! Review time is a very scarce resource and typo fixes, formatting etc. can be done by machines.

23:08 <glozow> +1, ACKing trivial drive-bys when there are real PRs to review is like the project scrolling tiktok. it eats up attention that could be spent elsewhere, and little bits here and there add up.

23:24 <sipa> trivial PRs should just be merged instantly by a maintainer if they feel it's sufficiently obvious, or not at all

23:24 <sipa> not worth wasting time on (including discussing it...)