Don't want to contradict you, but here is how I feel as a drive-by PR-er:
1. Some projects have a list of goal and non-goals. Rejecting a PR because I didn't read the non-goals is perfectly fine and should be encouraged.
2. I agree. But can't this be solved by putting the "burden of PR" on the PR-er? A long checklist of "I have read this" and "I have tested this" should raise the PR bar high enough to make the code review cost worth it.
3. I understand that bad people are a problem on the Internet, but this feels orthogonal to the "no PR policy". Won't those people "do shit" anyway?
> can't this be solved by putting the "burden of PR" on the PR-er? A long checklist of "I have read this" and "I have tested this" should raise the PR bar high enough to make the code review cost worth it.
People definitely do not read those. The less useful their PR is, the less likely they are to have read any of the stuff in the template.
And, also, it doesn't matter that much if the submitter has done all manual test steps (if any) -- the maintainer mostly needs to verify everything him/herself anyway
1. Some projects have a list of goal and non-goals. Rejecting a PR because I didn't read the non-goals is perfectly fine and should be encouraged.
2. I agree. But can't this be solved by putting the "burden of PR" on the PR-er? A long checklist of "I have read this" and "I have tested this" should raise the PR bar high enough to make the code review cost worth it.
3. I understand that bad people are a problem on the Internet, but this feels orthogonal to the "no PR policy". Won't those people "do shit" anyway?