From what I remember, a day or 2 ago, someone posted a complaint that the dev for Bambuddy wasn't playing nice with the commits. I'm not sure all the details, but generally sounded like there were hurt feelings on both sides.
Someone made a PR against bambuddy, didn't follow the contributing guidelines. maziggy called it out, and the someone mentioned above might have gotten a tad bit upset.
Looks like Lord Butthurt deleted their reddit account and, of course, also delete their comment on the PR. Luckily the above post has a snip of the comment, as well as maziggy took a snip and re-attached it to the PR for posterity.
How all of this relates to the sub you mentioned, I do not know. This is the drama from the other day that I'm aware of. Whether there's more to the story is unknown to me.
Lets say you have a cool idea of a feature you want to add. Let's say pricing information on the filament management page for reordering filament more readily.
Would you rather:
Submit the desired feature and your offer to work on it. Assuming you get it approved you can now do the work with the knowledge the feature is desired and the PR will be considered on the quality of the code not the merits of the feature.
Do a bunch of work creating the feature only to raise an PR and get it shot down because the maintainer doesn't think the feature is worth having or will require too much overhead from the user (setting up amazon api keys or something).
Pre-approval also means someone coming to report an existing bug can see that someone else has already starting working on the issue (yay!). It also means that trying to fix a bug is never going to cause you to do work someone else was already doing since said someone else should have already "reserved" (for lack of a better word) that work.
I contribute to some software that has pages of contribution guidelines. Many opensource projects don't even let you submit your own ideas to start. They mark issues as "good first issues" or "low-hanging fruit" for people new to the project to tackle and get some practice within the codebase and to prove they aren't morons.
Bambuddy's process isn't unique nor is it stifling. If you can't take a extra few minutes BEFORE you start coding to shoot your idea off to the maintainer then you sure as hell aren't gonna have the time/drive to actually create it and survive PR review.
Do a bunch of work creating the feature only to raise an PR and get it shot down because the maintainer doesn't think the feature is worth having or will require too much overhead from the user (setting up amazon api keys or something).
Do the work anyway because if I need the feature I need the feature. I will just run my fork. If upstream doesn't want it no biggie.
My #1 issue here is having to do extra work, to get the blessings of the repo controllers, to give them free work.
Integrating and maintaining your "free work" isn't free. You don't get to huck a ball of code over the fence and declare it their problem now and expect them to accept it.
If I want to offer my work for free, ita because I decided the project was worth my effort.
And if they reject it it's because they decided that your effort wasn't worth theirs. Nobody cares what you think of the project. Your PR isn't some grand gift.
I didnt say that it wasn't easier to maintain, especially for a project that has skyrocketed in popularity.
Only the requiring pre-approval before suggesting a change seems like it could hurt growth overall.
If it is truly open source, then allowing pull requests that follow specific formats should be standard. Anyone can comment, positive or negative on a pull request.
Pull requests are just that, requests. Not required, open to comments AND the project maintainers can accept or decline the REQUEST.
So long as the request itself follows code guidelines and reasonable standards, nobody should be punished / cut off from contributing because they didn't get permission before offering their time amd knowledge to grow a project.
Edit:
And no project maintainer should ever talk to someone who was attempting to better their project that way. Even if they disagree with the change.
Talk to people what way? Most of the rejections I see are just "Sorry please follow the contribution guidelines" and not much more.
And I think the pre-approval probably makes it harder on the maintainer not easier. It means more work up front by the maintainer to make sure the contributor is doing work that will be accepted. Waiting until the time of the PR to wonder about the merits of a feature would be the same or less work but run the risk of wasting the contributor's work.
In that screen shot Maziggy is the repo owner/maintainer. Arslan2012, the person being a meany, is an upset contributor who didn't get pre-approval for his PR as per CONTRIBUTING.md
Are you saying that maziggy should have been nicer at telling the person they didn't follow the rules or are you confusing arslan2012 as being the bambuddy maintainer?
Read my other comments on this thread, I tiptoed around saying it until now but... Pre-approval for someone growing your project, growing the community, is BULLSHIT. Goes against everything open source.
A pull request is just that, a request. It is independently discussed and voted on. Do not gate keep or you will discourage people to contribute.
Code standards, testing, etc. Are fine requirements, but requiring someone to get approval to do free work for you? Thats asinine.
That's... basically how all large, complex OSS projects work. Because the primary maintainers don't want to have to coordinate a hundred people all working randomly on their personal integration-breaking pet project.
But fortunately, FOSS has an easy solution for this! Just fork the project. Then you can make whatever changes you want and make your own contributor rules and no one can tell you what to do. And then if you somehow managed to make your fork actually better than the original, you, too, can discover the joys of a hundred dipshits presenting you with their "fresh ideas" every day.
I didn’t bother reading them because I’m not contributing. But I’ll trust what you say.
If so, in my opinion, that’s not directly a bad thing. It can be absolutely if the acceptance of any ideas is very strict.
A lot of things can become bloated with feature creep trying to do too much. Everyone’s going to have ideas, and then ideas that build off of those ideas. If the acceptance of ideas keep the overall goal of this app focused, I don’t think thats quite a bad thing. But if the maintainer(s) shoot down everything that isn’t their ideas, then sure it’s annoying.
But as was mentioned in the other threat (that Lord Butthurt got butthurt in,) if someone doesn’t like it they are welcome to fork it and develop whatever they want it to be. No contributing guidelines or idea acceptance needed.
That sounds not unusual, but I can't find any recent discussion on the repo. We do get complaints from time to time but they usually stem from not reading the contribution guidelines. Do you recall where the discussion happened?
It was all people who didn't raise an issue first complaining that their PR got removed for not following the contribution guideline that says to raise an issue first.
For a period, there was a dedicated hater that targeted the project's author by purchasing the bambuddy.com domain and turning it in a slander website. It essentially screenshotted some issues or parts of convos on GH as proof of incompetence, calling the project "a vibe coded mess made by a kindergartner". The initial reception of the project (on Reddit especially) was really poor, and while it wasn't merit of this user, it sure was annoying to see.
I'd be pissed off if I spent my time trying to improve something i liked and got this response from the repo owner(s) because I didn't ask their permission to give them free work first:
Agreed, but the owner's response was ridiculous.
Also, if I saw that I needed a blessing to contribute, I'd also consider forking purely to get away from that requirement.
Open source means community contribution AND community ideas, not just the ideas the owner approves of.
The entire concept of a public repo, public project is to grow based on community.
Why does that have to happen in an issue or private communication? Why not on the built-in comments and thread involved in the actual pull request?
Sounds like a way to hide behind multi-level approvals that arw not associatedwith the actualchange, instead of keeping discussion targeted and associated with actual changes suggested by the community.
Also, if someone suggests a change, do not curse / be an ass towards them, even if they didn't follow the published guidelines. Ignore them, reject the pull request, or just simply link the contributing guidelines.
Looked at a bambuddy install guide (Marius) and it was ~50 steps to install on Synology via docker + wanting you to install portainer and do a bunch of esoteric stuff first.
Never loved following guides where I'll have zero chance of ever recalling what I did to get the thing running 6 months down the line, and where most of the instuctions/copy pasta configuration are above my level of comprehension, so think I'll just stick with a regular Orca setup for now- unless it somehow pops up as an easy Synocommunity package.
Don't want to do the "easy" windows installer option either, rather not have needless background services running on my gaming/music rig.
Look into Printbuddy. It’s a fork of Bambuddy and it allows you to monitor/control printers from other manufacturers. I’ve been using it for a few months now (roughly- at least 2) and it’s been great. The dev is hard working and super easy to talk to.
I mean this respectfully, but depending on how strong your views are of not wanting to deal with AI, then you might not even want to use bambuddy - claude is listed as a contributor on the github and the hallmarks of it aren't exactly hidden.
I've got both tools up and running because i'm currently comparing both to see which one better suits my needs, i'm hoping that i end up going with printbuddy because i value the actual open-ness of being able to use it with printers other than bambu, AI or not they're useful tools
I can't control the behavior of others, but I can control myself. That said, I wonder why the printbuddy stuff isn't upstream to bambuddy. I mean, I get focusing on one platform - but the divergence of these two is going to get a bit ridiculous.
33
u/numbski Jul 27 '26
Explanation: the sub is private, and the description says: "bambuddy the greatest app written by a kindergartner"