<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Open-Source-Contribution on Thiago Avelino</title><link>https://avelino.run/tags/open-source-contribution/</link><description>Recent content in Open-Source-Contribution on Thiago Avelino</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>© Avelino</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 22:17:49 -0300</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://avelino.run/tags/open-source-contribution/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Contribute What You Use: Why Real Usage Makes Better Open Source Contributions</title><link>https://avelino.run/contribute-what-you-use/</link><pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://avelino.run/contribute-what-you-use/</guid><description>&lt;p>There's a pattern I see constantly in open source contributions, and it costs everyone involved more than it should.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Someone finds a project. They like the idea. They read the README, skim the codebase, spot what looks like a gap, and open a pull request. The code is clean. The intention is good. The problem: they've never actually used the software.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>The PR sits in review for a week. The maintainer tries to understand the motivation. Questions get asked. Answers are vague. The proposed solution works for a case the contributor imagined but doesn't account for how real users interact with the system. Eventually the PR gets closed - politely, if the maintainer has the energy for it.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>