So I made a pull request a few days ago, and it was quickly rejected by @mihir-kandoi for the following reason:
The usecase that you mentioned needs to be solved some other way, this is not the correct solution
This is barely an explanation, so I requested clarification on why this is the case, and have received no response. I understand that erpnext is a massive project with limited maintainers to review PRs, but even still: wut da hek? This really erodes my trust that community contributions are considered seriously, especially because I’ve had a wiki page “in review” for ~a month now.
At the end of the day I’m very impressed with what the team at Frappe is able to accomplish and I hope there aren’t any hard feelings, but I would really like a proper explanation as to why my PR was closed; at the very least I want to be able to move forward with an alternative solution.
I have also read that you should tag @rmehta often, which seems like a bandaid solution to an organizational problem, but now I have so whatever.
Reject, ignore, or flounder. Frappe is a great open source software with an amazing community having their hands tied behind their backs. Frappe would rather have a million silos of individuals making their own fixes behind closed doors, than harness the vast power in the sheer numbers of qualified developers submitting requests.
I’ve had a request challenged then flounder. It’s as simple as removing one word and one comma. Why in the world would we want to exclude ‘initiated” payment requests from being able to resend the email request.
As far as the lack of response to your comment on GitHub, I get a lot of spam in my notifications so I missed even seeing your comment.
Now coming to the PR, some time ago we did allow “no change” rows in Stock Reconciliation but there were issues with the SLE created against it, causing discrepancies.
If this was caused by the fact that submitting Stock Reconciliations with “no change” rows doesn’t create SLEs, but cancelling Stock Reconciliations does (which means that a “cancellation” SLE was created against an SLE that never existed in the first place), then I have fixed the bug and would appreciate it if you reopened the PR. If the reason for removing the feature was because of something else, then could you please provide me with the relevant information?
Either way (from what I understand), it just sounds like a bug that needs to be addressed before the change can be approved, not something that “needs to be solved some other way”.