[GH-ISSUE #719] [OSSHACK] Participant Feedback #213

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-26 18:45:54 +03:00 by kerem · 54 comments

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:54 +03:00

Owner

Copy link

Originally created by @Mythie on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/documenso/documenso/issues/719

Participated in OSS Hack? We want to hear your feedback on how you found the contribution and review process!

Instructions for Providing Feedback:

Honesty is Key: We encourage you to be candid in your responses. Your honest feedback will help us identify areas for improvement.

Scope of Feedback: Please share your thoughts on the following aspects:

1. Setup Process: Describe your experience with setting up the development environment and getting familiar with the codebase. Were there any challenges or issues you encountered?

2. Contribution Process: How did you find the process of contributing to our codebase? Were there any obstacles you faced while working on the project?

3. Review Process: Share your thoughts on the review process. Did you receive constructive feedback on your contributions? How was the communication with reviewers?

4. Feedback/Comments Received: If you received feedback or comments during the hackathon, did you find the feedback helpful and actionable?

5. Suggestions for Improvement: If you have any suggestions on how we can improve any of the above-mentioned processes or any additional feedback, please feel free to share.

Your Feedback Matters:

Your feedback is super important to us as it helps us get a better understanding of how we can improve the contribution and review process.

How to Submit Feedback:

Simply reply to this issue with your feedback. Positive or negative, we want to hear it all!

Originally created by @Mythie on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/documenso/documenso/issues/719 Participated in OSS Hack? We want to hear your feedback on how you found the contribution and review process! ## Instructions for Providing Feedback: **Honesty is Key:** We encourage you to be candid in your responses. Your honest feedback will help us identify areas for improvement. **Scope of Feedback:** Please share your thoughts on the following aspects: 1. **Setup Process:** Describe your experience with setting up the development environment and getting familiar with the codebase. Were there any challenges or issues you encountered? 2. **Contribution Process:** How did you find the process of contributing to our codebase? Were there any obstacles you faced while working on the project? 3. **Review Process:** Share your thoughts on the review process. Did you receive constructive feedback on your contributions? How was the communication with reviewers? 3. **Feedback/Comments Received:** If you received feedback or comments during the hackathon, did you find the feedback helpful and actionable? 4. **Suggestions for Improvement:** If you have any suggestions on how we can improve any of the above-mentioned processes or any additional feedback, please feel free to share. ## Your Feedback Matters: Your feedback is super important to us as it helps us get a better understanding of how we can improve the contribution and review process. ## How to Submit Feedback: Simply reply to this issue with your feedback. Positive or negative, we want to hear it all!

kerem 2026-02-26 18:45:54 +03:00

• closed this issue
• added the
  💰 Rewarded
  osshack
  labels

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@ksushant6566 commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Hey @Mythie and team Documenso, I'm sharing my feedback here,

Setup Process: Setup was super easy and clean, no complaints whatsoever. Simple commands for everything, nothing broke, everything worked!

Contribution Process: Probably a PR template would've been useful. Also, I couldn't find any code convention doc.

Review Process: The review process so far has been great, quick enough responses from @Mythie . Received direct and actionable feedback on PRs.

Feedback/Comments Received: Yes!

Suggestions for Improvement: Disacord hasn't been that active, maybe a timezone issue? Other than that I am having a great experience so far.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837370373 --> @ksushant6566 commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): Hey @Mythie and team Documenso, I'm sharing my feedback here, Setup Process: Setup was super easy and clean, no complaints whatsoever. Simple commands for everything, nothing broke, everything worked! Contribution Process: Probably a PR template would've been useful. Also, I couldn't find any code convention doc. Review Process: The review process so far has been great, quick enough responses from @Mythie . Received direct and actionable feedback on PRs. Feedback/Comments Received: Yes! Suggestions for Improvement: Disacord hasn't been that active, maybe a timezone issue? Other than that I am having a great experience so far.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Hey @Mythie and team Documenso, I'm sharing my feedback here,

Setup Process: Setup was super easy and clean, no complaints whatsoever. Simple commands for everything, nothing broke, everything worked!

Contribution Process: Probably a PR template would've been useful. Also, I couldn't find any code convention doc.

Review Process: The review process so far has been great, quick enough responses from @Mythie . Received direct and actionable feedback on PRs.

Feedback/Comments Received: Yes!

Suggestions for Improvement: Disacord hasn't been that active, maybe a timezone issue? Other than that I am having a great experience so far.

Awesome to hear! Ping me in the #oss-hack channel https://discord.com/channels/1132216843537485854/1180748983660974091

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837379976 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): > Hey @Mythie and team Documenso, I'm sharing my feedback here, > > Setup Process: Setup was super easy and clean, no complaints whatsoever. Simple commands for everything, nothing broke, everything worked! > > Contribution Process: Probably a PR template would've been useful. Also, I couldn't find any code convention doc. > > Review Process: The review process so far has been great, quick enough responses from @Mythie . Received direct and actionable feedback on PRs. > > Feedback/Comments Received: Yes! > > Suggestions for Improvement: Disacord hasn't been that active, maybe a timezone issue? Other than that I am having a great experience so far. Awesome to hear! Ping me in the `#oss-hack` channel https://discord.com/channels/1132216843537485854/1180748983660974091

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip $25 @ksushant6566

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837383111 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip $25 @ksushant6566

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

🎉🎈 @ksushant6566 has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837383154 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): 🎉🎈 @ksushant6566 has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@dalalsoham commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

hey @Mythie,
I'm sharing my feedback here,

Setup Process:
The setup process was fairly smooth overall. The documentation provided was clear and concise, helping me set up the development environment without major issues. However, it would have been helpful to have more detailed instructions for specific dependencies or potential roadblocks. For instance, specifying the required versions of certain libraries or tools could prevent compatibility issues.

Contribution Process:
Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience. The project had a well-defined structure, and the contribution guidelines were helpful. The community was welcoming, and I appreciated the guidance provided by maintainers. One suggestion would be to have a more detailed roadmap or list of beginner-friendly issues for new contributors. This could help individuals unfamiliar with the codebase find suitable tasks more easily.

Review Process:
The review process was generally effective. Reviewers provided constructive feedback that helped me improve my contributions. However, there were instances where the feedback was a bit delayed, and it would have been beneficial to have a clearer timeline for reviews. Additionally, having a standardized checklist or criteria for reviews could make the process more transparent.

Feedback/Comments Received:
The feedback I received during the hackathon was valuable and actionable. Reviewers took the time to explain their suggestions, which greatly contributed to my learning experience. It would be helpful to encourage more detailed feedback from reviewers to ensure contributors understand the reasoning behind suggested changes.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Enhanced Documentation: Provide more detailed documentation, especially regarding specific dependencies and potential challenges during the setup process. This can help new contributors save time and reduce frustration.

2. Clear Roadmap for Beginners: Create a clear roadmap or list of beginner-friendly issues to guide new contributors. This can facilitate the onboarding process and make it easier for individuals to find suitable tasks.

3. Timely Reviews: Establish a more defined timeline for reviews to ensure contributors receive feedback in a timely manner. This can help maintain momentum and enthusiasm among contributors.

4. Standardized Review Criteria: Implement a standardized checklist or criteria for reviews to ensure consistency and transparency in the feedback provided by reviewers.

5. Encourage Detailed Feedback: Encourage reviewers to provide more detailed feedback to help contributors understand the reasoning behind suggested changes. This can enhance the learning experience for contributors.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837435169 --> @dalalsoham commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): hey @Mythie, I'm sharing my feedback here, Setup Process: The setup process was fairly smooth overall. The documentation provided was clear and concise, helping me set up the development environment without major issues. However, it would have been helpful to have more detailed instructions for specific dependencies or potential roadblocks. For instance, specifying the required versions of certain libraries or tools could prevent compatibility issues. Contribution Process: Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience. The project had a well-defined structure, and the contribution guidelines were helpful. The community was welcoming, and I appreciated the guidance provided by maintainers. One suggestion would be to have a more detailed roadmap or list of beginner-friendly issues for new contributors. This could help individuals unfamiliar with the codebase find suitable tasks more easily. Review Process: The review process was generally effective. Reviewers provided constructive feedback that helped me improve my contributions. However, there were instances where the feedback was a bit delayed, and it would have been beneficial to have a clearer timeline for reviews. Additionally, having a standardized checklist or criteria for reviews could make the process more transparent. Feedback/Comments Received: The feedback I received during the hackathon was valuable and actionable. Reviewers took the time to explain their suggestions, which greatly contributed to my learning experience. It would be helpful to encourage more detailed feedback from reviewers to ensure contributors understand the reasoning behind suggested changes. Suggestions for Improvement: 1. Enhanced Documentation: Provide more detailed documentation, especially regarding specific dependencies and potential challenges during the setup process. This can help new contributors save time and reduce frustration. 2. Clear Roadmap for Beginners: Create a clear roadmap or list of beginner-friendly issues to guide new contributors. This can facilitate the onboarding process and make it easier for individuals to find suitable tasks. 3. Timely Reviews: Establish a more defined timeline for reviews to ensure contributors receive feedback in a timely manner. This can help maintain momentum and enthusiasm among contributors. 4. Standardized Review Criteria: Implement a standardized checklist or criteria for reviews to ensure consistency and transparency in the feedback provided by reviewers. 5. Encourage Detailed Feedback: Encourage reviewers to provide more detailed feedback to help contributors understand the reasoning behind suggested changes. This can enhance the learning experience for contributors.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@mikezzb commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Feedback

1. Setup Process:

The setup process was smooth, but I was distracted by the contribution guide, which seems outdated with the build and development instructions.

2. Contribution Process:

The folder structure is well-maintained, making it easy to navigate through the project. Proper types and variable names are used in the project, which enhances code readability.

3. Review Process:

I highly appreciate the line-by-line code review by the maintainer. The suggestions are clear and helpful in solving problems.

4. Feedback/Comments Received:

The feedback during code review is helpful.

5. Suggestions for Improvement:

I believe the rules for accepting submissions on this repository differ from my expectations. I expected the bounty to be on a "first-come, first-served" basis, where a pull request passing a certain quality threshold would be treated as a preliminary claim of the bounty. The code could then be further refined based on the code review. However, since the code review is done in batches, there is no advantage to submitting early, as all submissions are reviewed at a similar time. The second mover has more information, time, and reference to design a more considerate solution, easily surpassing the first person who spent the majority of their time figuring out what to do.

If the bounty is not time-sensitive, why not change the format to a competition where people can strive for perfection instead of exploration?

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837441617 --> @mikezzb commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): ### Feedback 1. Setup Process: The setup process was smooth, but I was distracted by the contribution guide, which seems outdated with the build and development instructions. 2. Contribution Process: The folder structure is well-maintained, making it easy to navigate through the project. Proper types and variable names are used in the project, which enhances code readability. 3. Review Process: I highly appreciate the line-by-line code review by the maintainer. The suggestions are clear and helpful in solving problems. 4. Feedback/Comments Received: The feedback during code review is helpful. 5. Suggestions for Improvement: I believe the rules for accepting submissions on this repository differ from my expectations. I expected the bounty to be on a "first-come, first-served" basis, where a pull request passing a certain quality threshold would be treated as a preliminary claim of the bounty. The code could then be further refined based on the code review. However, since the code review is done in batches, there is no advantage to submitting early, as all submissions are reviewed at a similar time. The second mover has more information, time, and reference to design a more considerate solution, easily surpassing the first person who spent the majority of their time figuring out what to do. If the bounty is not time-sensitive, why not change the format to a competition where people can strive for perfection instead of exploration?

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Feedback

1. Setup Process:

The setup process was smooth, but I was distracted by the contribution guide, which seems outdated with the build and development instructions.

2. Contribution Process:

The folder structure is well-maintained, making it easy to navigate through the project. Proper types and variable names are used in the project, which enhances code readability.

3. Review Process:

I highly appreciate the line-by-line code review by the maintainer. The suggestions are clear and helpful in solving problems.

4. Feedback/Comments Received:

The feedback during code review is helpful.

5. Suggestions for Improvement:

I believe the rules for accepting submissions on this repository differ from my expectations. I expected the bounty to be on a "first-come, first-served" basis, where a pull request passing a certain quality threshold would be treated as a preliminary claim of the bounty. The code could then be further refined based on the code review. However, since the code review is done in batches, there is no advantage to submitting early, as all submissions are reviewed at a similar time. The second mover has more information, time, and reference to design a more considerate solution, easily surpassing the first person who spent the majority of their time figuring out what to do.

If the bounty is not time-sensitive, why not change the format to a competition where people can strive for perfection instead of exploration?

Hey Mike, that last part is an excellent point. Your PR's are all important to me but unfortunately it's the weekend so only myself and Timur can review with myself being the most qualified to do so at the moment. This unfortunately means we're bound by timezones that said the first mover still has the advantage in the sense that I'll review all code from oldest to newest before performing review again.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837449344 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): > ### Feedback > 1. Setup Process: > > The setup process was smooth, but I was distracted by the contribution guide, which seems outdated with the build and development instructions. > > 2. Contribution Process: > > The folder structure is well-maintained, making it easy to navigate through the project. Proper types and variable names are used in the project, which enhances code readability. > > 3. Review Process: > > I highly appreciate the line-by-line code review by the maintainer. The suggestions are clear and helpful in solving problems. > > 4. Feedback/Comments Received: > > The feedback during code review is helpful. > > 5. Suggestions for Improvement: > > I believe the rules for accepting submissions on this repository differ from my expectations. I expected the bounty to be on a "first-come, first-served" basis, where a pull request passing a certain quality threshold would be treated as a preliminary claim of the bounty. The code could then be further refined based on the code review. However, since the code review is done in batches, there is no advantage to submitting early, as all submissions are reviewed at a similar time. The second mover has more information, time, and reference to design a more considerate solution, easily surpassing the first person who spent the majority of their time figuring out what to do. > > If the bounty is not time-sensitive, why not change the format to a competition where people can strive for perfection instead of exploration? Hey Mike, that last part is an excellent point. Your PR's are all important to me but unfortunately it's the weekend so only myself and Timur can review with myself being the most qualified to do so at the moment. This unfortunately means we're bound by timezones that said the first mover still has the advantage in the sense that I'll review all code from oldest to newest before performing review again.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @dalalsoham

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837479479 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @dalalsoham

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

@dalalsoham: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837479514 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): @dalalsoham: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @mikezzb

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837479571 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @mikezzb

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

@mikezzb: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837479615 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): @mikezzb: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@e-roy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

I didn't see that submitting feedback was here. Linking my feedback 😀

https://github.com/documenso/documenso/pull/717#issuecomment-1837512655

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837513739 --> @e-roy commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): I didn't see that submitting feedback was here. Linking my feedback 😀 https://github.com/documenso/documenso/pull/717#issuecomment-1837512655

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@ksushant6566 commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Feedback

1. Setup Process:

The setup process was smooth, but I was distracted by the contribution guide, which seems outdated with the build and development instructions.

2. Contribution Process:

The folder structure is well-maintained, making it easy to navigate through the project. Proper types and variable names are used in the project, which enhances code readability.

3. Review Process:

I highly appreciate the line-by-line code review by the maintainer. The suggestions are clear and helpful in solving problems.

4. Feedback/Comments Received:

The feedback during code review is helpful.

5. Suggestions for Improvement:

I believe the rules for accepting submissions on this repository differ from my expectations. I expected the bounty to be on a "first-come, first-served" basis, where a pull request passing a certain quality threshold would be treated as a preliminary claim of the bounty. The code could then be further refined based on the code review. However, since the code review is done in batches, there is no advantage to submitting early, as all submissions are reviewed at a similar time. The second mover has more information, time, and reference to design a more considerate solution, easily surpassing the first person who spent the majority of their time figuring out what to do.

If the bounty is not time-sensitive, why not change the format to a competition where people can strive for perfection instead of exploration?

💯 percent agreed with the last point

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837522900 --> @ksushant6566 commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): > ### Feedback > 1. Setup Process: > > The setup process was smooth, but I was distracted by the contribution guide, which seems outdated with the build and development instructions. > > 2. Contribution Process: > > The folder structure is well-maintained, making it easy to navigate through the project. Proper types and variable names are used in the project, which enhances code readability. > > 3. Review Process: > > I highly appreciate the line-by-line code review by the maintainer. The suggestions are clear and helpful in solving problems. > > 4. Feedback/Comments Received: > > The feedback during code review is helpful. > > 5. Suggestions for Improvement: > > I believe the rules for accepting submissions on this repository differ from my expectations. I expected the bounty to be on a "first-come, first-served" basis, where a pull request passing a certain quality threshold would be treated as a preliminary claim of the bounty. The code could then be further refined based on the code review. However, since the code review is done in batches, there is no advantage to submitting early, as all submissions are reviewed at a similar time. The second mover has more information, time, and reference to design a more considerate solution, easily surpassing the first person who spent the majority of their time figuring out what to do. > > If the bounty is not time-sensitive, why not change the format to a competition where people can strive for perfection instead of exploration? 💯 percent agreed with the last point

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@nikxe commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Hi @Mythie,

I'd like to share my feedback on the project's various processes:

Setup Process:
The setup process was generally smooth. The provided documentation was clear and concise, facilitating the establishment of the development environment without significant issues. However, more detailed instructions on specific dependencies and potential roadblocks would have been beneficial. For instance, specifying required versions of certain libraries or tools could help prevent compatibility issues.

Contribution Process:
Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience. The project demonstrated a well-defined structure, and the contribution guidelines were helpful. The community's welcoming nature and the guidance from maintainers were appreciated. One suggestion is to provide a more detailed roadmap or a list of beginner-friendly issues for new contributors, aiding those unfamiliar with the codebase in finding suitable tasks more easily.

Review Process:
The review process was generally effective, with constructive feedback aiding in the improvement of contributions. However, there were instances of delayed feedback. A clearer timeline for reviews and the implementation of a standardized checklist or criteria could enhance transparency in the review process.

Feedback/Comments Received:
The feedback received during the hackathon was valuable and actionable. Reviewers took the time to explain their suggestions, greatly contributing to my learning experience. Encouraging more detailed feedback from reviewers would be helpful to ensure contributors understand the reasoning behind suggested changes.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Enhanced Documentation:
Provide more detailed documentation, especially regarding specific dependencies and potential challenges during the setup process, to help new contributors save time and reduce frustration.

Clear Roadmap for Beginners:
Create a clear roadmap or list of beginner-friendly issues to guide new contributors, facilitating the onboarding process and making it easier for individuals to find suitable tasks.

Timely Reviews:
Establish a more defined timeline for reviews to ensure contributors receive feedback promptly, helping maintain momentum and enthusiasm among contributors.

Thats about it i guess.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837524040 --> @nikxe commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): Hi @Mythie, I'd like to share my feedback on the project's various processes: Setup Process: The setup process was generally smooth. The provided documentation was clear and concise, facilitating the establishment of the development environment without significant issues. However, more detailed instructions on specific dependencies and potential roadblocks would have been beneficial. For instance, specifying required versions of certain libraries or tools could help prevent compatibility issues. Contribution Process: Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience. The project demonstrated a well-defined structure, and the contribution guidelines were helpful. The community's welcoming nature and the guidance from maintainers were appreciated. One suggestion is to provide a more detailed roadmap or a list of beginner-friendly issues for new contributors, aiding those unfamiliar with the codebase in finding suitable tasks more easily. Review Process: The review process was generally effective, with constructive feedback aiding in the improvement of contributions. However, there were instances of delayed feedback. A clearer timeline for reviews and the implementation of a standardized checklist or criteria could enhance transparency in the review process. Feedback/Comments Received: The feedback received during the hackathon was valuable and actionable. Reviewers took the time to explain their suggestions, greatly contributing to my learning experience. Encouraging more detailed feedback from reviewers would be helpful to ensure contributors understand the reasoning behind suggested changes. Suggestions for Improvement: Enhanced Documentation: Provide more detailed documentation, especially regarding specific dependencies and potential challenges during the setup process, to help new contributors save time and reduce frustration. Clear Roadmap for Beginners: Create a clear roadmap or list of beginner-friendly issues to guide new contributors, facilitating the onboarding process and making it easier for individuals to find suitable tasks. Timely Reviews: Establish a more defined timeline for reviews to ensure contributors receive feedback promptly, helping maintain momentum and enthusiasm among contributors. Thats about it i guess.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

🎉🎈 @dalalsoham has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837527551 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): 🎉🎈 @dalalsoham has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@dalalsoham commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/claim #719

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837533509 --> @dalalsoham commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /claim #719

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@kritarth2121 commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Hey @Mythie and team Documenso, I'm sharing my feedback here,

Setup Process: Setup was super easy and clean, but I was on Windows, and I was getting weird prettier errors, I fixed that myself and opened a PR as well #725, so that no other person faces this.

Contribution Process: Probably a PR template would've been useful. Also, I couldn't find any code convention doc. The husky implementation was nice.

Review Process: The review process was good.

Feedback/Comments Received: Yes!

Suggestions for Improvement:

The readme can be improved, we can add these points that we can improve it ( I faced difficulties in these)

1. The setting of the database in a local database tool like Dbeaver.
2. Providing thorough documentation and Roadmap, the YouTube video was very short
3. Prisma Migration commands

Apart from this

• We should install a library in our system, that should remove unused imports automatically while committing.
• Also, we can integrate SonarLint into our platform/Github, which will further check the quality of our code.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837567208 --> @kritarth2121 commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): Hey @Mythie and team Documenso, I'm sharing my feedback here, Setup Process: Setup was super easy and clean, but I was on Windows, and I was getting weird prettier errors, **I fixed that myself and opened a PR as well #725, so that no other person faces this.** Contribution Process: Probably a PR template would've been useful. Also, I couldn't find any code convention doc. The husky implementation was nice. Review Process: The review process was good. Feedback/Comments Received: Yes! **Suggestions for Improvement:** The readme can be improved, we can add these points that we can improve it ( I faced difficulties in these) 1. The setting of the database in a local database tool like Dbeaver. 2. Providing thorough documentation and Roadmap, the YouTube video was very short 3. Prisma Migration commands Apart from this - We should install a library in our system, that should remove unused imports automatically while committing. - Also, we can integrate SonarLint into our platform/Github, which will further check the quality of our code.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@bilalqv commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Since the event is about to finish, I'm sharing my feedback:

1. Setup Process:

   • Setup was straightforward with clear instructions.
   • No major challenges encountered; everything worked seamlessly.

2. Contribution Process:

   • I found it easy from the very first time, may be because the code base is not that big at this time.

3. Review Process:

   • Timely feedback is provided, but considering with respect to OSSHack, there were delays in the review process in general, keeping in view the duration of the event.

4. Feedback/Comments Received:

   • Feedback and the comments received on the PRs are super helpful in moving towards the final accepted solution.

5. Suggestions for Improvement:

   • The issues created by the maintainers should be very clear and each edge case should be covered in the description itself. Contributors can sometimes assume something which might not be as per the requirements of the product, leading to the wastage of the effort.
   • What if we create a document of the product like what each section in the product is meant for and how it is expected to work. This will be helpful for new contributors to understand the product and the code base easily.
   • What about creating a high level document about the DB Schema, this will also help new contributors to get started quickly.
   • For the above two points we can create a flow-chart like document with the relevant details.
   • Specifically, with respect to OSSHack, pre defining the acceptance criteria or rules to be followed in case of multiple PRs for the same issues would have been helpful.

Above all it was a great experience to be part of this event!

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837569314 --> @bilalqv commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): Since the event is about to finish, I'm sharing my feedback: 1. Setup Process: - Setup was straightforward with clear instructions. - No major challenges encountered; everything worked seamlessly. 3. Contribution Process: - I found it easy from the very first time, may be because the code base is not that big at this time. 4. Review Process: - Timely feedback is provided, but considering with respect to OSSHack, there were delays in the review process in general, keeping in view the duration of the event. 6. Feedback/Comments Received: - Feedback and the comments received on the PRs are super helpful in moving towards the final accepted solution. 7. Suggestions for Improvement: - The issues created by the maintainers should be very clear and each edge case should be covered in the description itself. Contributors can sometimes assume something which might not be as per the requirements of the product, leading to the wastage of the effort. - What if we create a document of the product like what each section in the product is meant for and how it is expected to work. This will be helpful for new contributors to understand the product and the code base easily. - What about creating a high level document about the DB Schema, this will also help new contributors to get started quickly. - For the above two points we can create a flow-chart like document with the relevant details. - Specifically, with respect to OSSHack, pre defining the acceptance criteria or rules to be followed in case of multiple PRs for the same issues would have been helpful. Above all it was a great experience to be part of this event!

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@99pswork commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Writing my feedback (New to community)

Setup:

1. The setup is process one of the best i have seen in open source communities, with clear instructions and multiple ways to setup including the docker container setup and otherwise, its delight for freelancer / open source contributors.
2. One small point that i got stuck was i tried for email verification and got confused for some time for not receiving actual emails until the point i realised that we have mock service for emails.

Contributions:

1. Would love to see more issues coming up open to public so that we can get hands on and contribute more.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837575062 --> @99pswork commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): Writing my feedback (New to community) Setup: 1) The setup is process one of the best i have seen in open source communities, with clear instructions and multiple ways to setup including the docker container setup and otherwise, its delight for freelancer / open source contributors. 2) One small point that i got stuck was i tried for email verification and got confused for some time for not receiving actual emails until the point i realised that we have mock service for emails. Contributions: 1) Would love to see more issues coming up open to public so that we can get hands on and contribute more.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@thehanimo commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

Setup Process: Pretty straightforward setup. Had all the prerequisites so didn't come across any issues. I think providing steps to connect and access the database, independently outside of the application, could help. Always nice to see changes in the database and tinker with edge cases when building features.

Contribution Process: Standard, easy-to-follow guidelines. Based my commit and PR formats off of previous ones too.

Review Process: Simply amazing! Very responsive and direct, despite timezone differences. Kudos @Mythie!

Feedback/Comments Received: Thoughtful, forward-thinking.

Suggestions for Improvement: Had some trouble trying to find icons that exist in figma but not in the code. Went with whatever I felt was best. Really impressed by the figma designs, haven't seen a lot of OSS projects paying too much attention to design. Happy to contribute further!

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837586261 --> @thehanimo commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): Setup Process: Pretty straightforward setup. Had all the prerequisites so didn't come across any issues. I think providing steps to connect and access the database, independently outside of the application, could help. Always nice to see changes in the database and tinker with edge cases when building features. Contribution Process: Standard, easy-to-follow guidelines. Based my commit and PR formats off of previous ones too. Review Process: Simply amazing! Very responsive and direct, despite timezone differences. Kudos @Mythie! Feedback/Comments Received: Thoughtful, forward-thinking. Suggestions for Improvement: Had some trouble trying to find icons that exist in figma but not in the code. Went with whatever I felt was best. Really impressed by the figma designs, haven't seen a lot of OSS projects paying too much attention to design. Happy to contribute further!

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @e-roy
/tip 25 @nikhilxe

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837632394 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @e-roy /tip 25 @nikhilxe

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

@e-roy: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837632443 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): @e-roy: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

🎉🎈 @nikhilxe has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837632500 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): 🎉🎈 @nikhilxe has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:55 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @kritarth2121

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633012 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @kritarth2121

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @crediblebilal

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633027 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @crediblebilal

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @99pswork

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633044 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @99pswork

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

/tip 25 @thehanimo

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633053 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): /tip 25 @thehanimo

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

@crediblebilal: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633072 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): @crediblebilal: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

@thehanimo: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633081 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): @thehanimo: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

@99pswork: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837633098 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): @99pswork: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023):

🎉🎈 @kritarth2121 has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837637053 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 3, 2023): 🎉🎈 @kritarth2121 has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

🎉🎈 @mikezzb has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837742360 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): 🎉🎈 @mikezzb has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

🎉🎈 @thehanimo has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837744047 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): 🎉🎈 @thehanimo has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Rohan-Narayan commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

Setup Process: Setting up was not too bad, had some issues with docker/postgres integration at first as well as some outdated node issues that were problems on my end.

Contribution Process: A standardized PR template would have been helpful as well as more documentation on preferred coding styles, expected test practices, etc.

Review Process: Still in progress, but Lucas Smith gave very helpful replies on discord as we were developing which was much appreciated!

Feedback/Comments Received: Still in progress

Suggestions for Improvement: Bounty could have been a little clearer - thought we would be implementing semantic search in place of keyword search and could sub out functionality, but it doesn't look like keyword search is currently functional either. Got caught up in more front-end results displaying and rendering our search outputs than we expected. Some more documentation on setting up the environment variables could be helpful - had to edit some locally to get it working (NEXT_PRIVATE_ENCRYPTION_KEY needed to be extended to 32 characters, NEXT_PRIVATE_DATABASE_URL - auto generated slightly off from actual url and had an extra 0 in port). Overall, good experience contributing!

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837858862 --> @Rohan-Narayan commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): Setup Process: Setting up was not too bad, had some issues with docker/postgres integration at first as well as some outdated node issues that were problems on my end. Contribution Process: A standardized PR template would have been helpful as well as more documentation on preferred coding styles, expected test practices, etc. Review Process: Still in progress, but Lucas Smith gave very helpful replies on discord as we were developing which was much appreciated! Feedback/Comments Received: Still in progress Suggestions for Improvement: Bounty could have been a little clearer - thought we would be implementing semantic search in place of keyword search and could sub out functionality, but it doesn't look like keyword search is currently functional either. Got caught up in more front-end results displaying and rendering our search outputs than we expected. Some more documentation on setting up the environment variables could be helpful - had to edit some locally to get it working (NEXT_PRIVATE_ENCRYPTION_KEY needed to be extended to 32 characters, NEXT_PRIVATE_DATABASE_URL - auto generated slightly off from actual url and had an extra 0 in port). Overall, good experience contributing!

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

🎉🎈 @99pswork has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837890762 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): 🎉🎈 @99pswork has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@SohamJack003 commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

here is my feedback on the contribution and review process for the OSS Hack:

Setup Process:

The setup process was relatively smooth. The instructions were clear and easy to follow. I was able to get the development environment up and running quickly and easily. However, I did encounter a few minor issues. First, I had to install a few additional dependencies that were not mentioned in the instructions. Second, the codebase was quite large, so it took some time to get familiar with it.

Contribution Process:

The contribution process was well-defined. There were clear guidelines for submitting contributions and the maintainers were responsive to questions. I was able to submit my contribution without any major issues. However, I did find the review process to be a bit slow. I had to wait for a few days for feedback on my contribution.

Review Process:

The reviewers were generally helpful and provided constructive feedback. However, the communication with reviewers could be improved. I would have appreciated more timely feedback and more detailed explanations of the feedback.

Feedback/Comments Received:

The feedback I received was helpful and actionable. I was able to use the feedback to improve my contribution.

Suggestions for Improvement:

I would suggest the following improvements to the contribution and review process:

• Provide a more comprehensive list of dependencies in the setup instructions.
• Break down the codebase into smaller, more manageable modules.
• Streamline the review process to reduce the amount of time it takes to get feedback.
• Improve communication with reviewers by providing more timely feedback and more detailed explanations of the feedback.

Overall, I had a positive experience with the OSS Hack. I learned a lot about open source development and I was able to contribute to a real-world project. I would encourage others to participate in future OSS Hacks.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1837895728 --> @SohamJack003 commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): here is my feedback on the contribution and review process for the OSS Hack: Setup Process: The setup process was relatively smooth. The instructions were clear and easy to follow. I was able to get the development environment up and running quickly and easily. However, I did encounter a few minor issues. First, I had to install a few additional dependencies that were not mentioned in the instructions. Second, the codebase was quite large, so it took some time to get familiar with it. Contribution Process: The contribution process was well-defined. There were clear guidelines for submitting contributions and the maintainers were responsive to questions. I was able to submit my contribution without any major issues. However, I did find the review process to be a bit slow. I had to wait for a few days for feedback on my contribution. Review Process: The reviewers were generally helpful and provided constructive feedback. However, the communication with reviewers could be improved. I would have appreciated more timely feedback and more detailed explanations of the feedback. Feedback/Comments Received: The feedback I received was helpful and actionable. I was able to use the feedback to improve my contribution. Suggestions for Improvement: I would suggest the following improvements to the contribution and review process: * Provide a more comprehensive list of dependencies in the setup instructions. * Break down the codebase into smaller, more manageable modules. * Streamline the review process to reduce the amount of time it takes to get feedback. * Improve communication with reviewers by providing more timely feedback and more detailed explanations of the feedback. Overall, I had a positive experience with the OSS Hack. I learned a lot about open source development and I was able to contribute to a real-world project. I would encourage others to participate in future OSS Hacks.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@bilalqv commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

/claim #719

<!-- gh-comment-id:1838159840 --> @bilalqv commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): /claim #719

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

🎉🎈 @crediblebilal has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1838635727 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): 🎉🎈 @crediblebilal has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@e-roy commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

/claim #719

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839277349 --> @e-roy commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): /claim #719

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023):

🎉🎈 @e-roy has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839292085 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 4, 2023): 🎉🎈 @e-roy has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

Hey @SohamJack003 could you provide some further clarification on this point?

The contribution process was well-defined. There were clear guidelines for submitting contributions and the maintainers were responsive to questions. I was able to submit my contribution without any major issues. However, I did find the review process to be a bit slow. I had to wait for a few days for feedback on my contribution.

The hackathon was only over the weekend and I was sure to review as much as I could as fast as I can time permitting. I don't think anyone had to wait days since that would indicate that the hackathon finished prior to their submission being reviewed which hasn't happened.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839927295 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): Hey @SohamJack003 could you provide some further clarification on this point? > The contribution process was well-defined. There were clear guidelines for submitting contributions and the maintainers were responsive to questions. I was able to submit my contribution without any major issues. However, I did find the review process to be a bit slow. I had to wait for a few days for feedback on my contribution. The hackathon was only over the weekend and I was sure to review as much as I could as fast as I can time permitting. I don't think anyone had to wait days since that would indicate that the hackathon finished prior to their submission being reviewed which hasn't happened.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

/tip 25 @Rohan-Narayan
/tip 25 @SohamJack003

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839927526 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): /tip 25 @Rohan-Narayan /tip 25 @SohamJack003

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

@Rohan-Narayan: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839927674 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): @Rohan-Narayan: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

@SohamJack003: You just got a $25 tip! 👉 Complete your Algora onboarding to collect your payment.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839927759 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): @SohamJack003: You just got a **$25** tip! 👉 [Complete your Algora onboarding](https://console.algora.io) to collect your payment.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

Thanks to everyone for your feedback, I've really enjoyed reading it and I'm glad that most of it is fairly positive!

I hope you all had a great hackathon experience, it was actually my first so it's been a massive learning experience especially since I was the receiver of submissions rather than someone working on a submission 😄

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839928868 --> @Mythie commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): Thanks to everyone for your feedback, I've really enjoyed reading it and I'm glad that most of it is fairly positive! I hope you all had a great hackathon experience, it was actually my first so it's been a massive learning experience especially since I was the receiver of submissions rather than someone working on a submission 😄

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Rohan-Narayan commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

/claim #719

<!-- gh-comment-id:1839935276 --> @Rohan-Narayan commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): /claim #719

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

🎉🎈 @Rohan-Narayan has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1841006066 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): 🎉🎈 @Rohan-Narayan has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@mittalsam98 commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

Hey @Mythie,
Here are my general reviews for the community:

Setup Process:
TBH setup process was well documented and straightforwad. The inclusion of both a quickstart for developers using Docker and a manual setup guide provides flexibility based on the preference but for me Docker setup is quick and easy.

Contribution Process
The contribution process was well-defined with a clear link to the contribution guide and contribution guide was clear. Help from the discord channel is also appreciatable. However, it would be beneficial to include information about the code structure and areas that require specific attention for contributions. This could aid developers in identifying suitable tasks more efficiently

Review Process: Reviewers were really helpful and transparent, however sometime delay was noticed which I think is because of the timezone differences and it is okay IMO.

Feedback/Comments Received: Discussions section allowed for open communication and the feedback received was valuable and actionable.

Suggestions for Improvement

Code Comments: While the code is generally well-organized, adding comments to complex or critical sections can aid in better understanding, especially for new contributors.

Expand Documentation: Consider expanding documentation to cover more aspects of the project, such as architecture decision, coding standards, and testing procedures.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1841340943 --> @mittalsam98 commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): Hey @Mythie, Here are my general reviews for the community: Setup Process: TBH setup process was well documented and straightforwad. The inclusion of both a quickstart for developers using Docker and a manual setup guide provides flexibility based on the preference but for me Docker setup is quick and easy. Contribution Process The contribution process was well-defined with a clear link to the contribution guide and contribution guide was clear. Help from the discord channel is also appreciatable. However, it would be beneficial to include information about the code structure and areas that require specific attention for contributions. This could aid developers in identifying suitable tasks more efficiently Review Process: Reviewers were really helpful and transparent, however sometime delay was noticed which I think is because of the timezone differences and it is okay IMO. Feedback/Comments Received: Discussions section allowed for open communication and the feedback received was valuable and actionable. Suggestions for Improvement Code Comments: While the code is generally well-organized, adding comments to complex or critical sections can aid in better understanding, especially for new contributors. Expand Documentation: Consider expanding documentation to cover more aspects of the project, such as architecture decision, coding standards, and testing procedures.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Anshul1811 commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023):

Hi @Mythie
Here is my review...

Setup Process
The setup process was generally smooth. The provided documentation was great, and was easy to follow. As a begineer I was able to follow the docs and was able to get the development environment.

Contribution Process
Contributing to the codebase was a great experience. The project was well-maintained and the community was really amazing and more importantly it was welcoming begineers, so there is alot to learn.

Review Process
For me reviews were a bit delay, it can be because of working in different timezones but yeah next time this part can be worked upon which helps in fast reviewing and helps to get time to improve the code within the event and contribute more.

Feedback/Comments Received
The feedback I received was helpful and can be applied. I was able to use the feedback to improve my contribution. so it was overall great experience for me.

Suggestions for Improvement
For me the overall experience was great. The one thing I would like to say is to work on the reviewing ptocess, try to make it fast maybe increasing the number of people for reviewing.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1841585891 --> @Anshul1811 commented on GitHub (Dec 5, 2023): Hi @Mythie Here is my review... **Setup Process** The setup process was generally smooth. The provided documentation was great, and was easy to follow. As a begineer I was able to follow the docs and was able to get the development environment. **Contribution Process** Contributing to the codebase was a great experience. The project was well-maintained and the community was really amazing and more importantly it was welcoming begineers, so there is alot to learn. **Review Process** For me reviews were a bit delay, it can be because of working in different timezones but yeah next time this part can be worked upon which helps in fast reviewing and helps to get time to improve the code within the event and contribute more. **Feedback/Comments Received** The feedback I received was helpful and can be applied. I was able to use the feedback to improve my contribution. so it was overall great experience for me. **Suggestions for Improvement** For me the overall experience was great. The one thing I would like to say is to work on the reviewing ptocess, try to make it fast maybe increasing the number of people for reviewing.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@namrata676 commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2023):

Hi Team, here is my feedback
Setup Process:
The setup process proceeded smoothly, although my focus was momentarily diverted by the contribution guide, which appears outdated in relation to the current build and development instructions.

Contribution Process:
The project boasts a well-maintained folder structure, facilitating easy navigation. The use of proper types and variable names enhances overall code readability.

Review Process:
I express my gratitude for the meticulous line-by-line code review conducted by the maintainer. The suggestions provided were clear and instrumental in resolving issues.

Feedback/Comments Received:
The feedback received during the code review was valuable.

Suggestions for Improvement:
I've observed a disparity between my expectations and the repository's submission acceptance rules. I anticipated a "first-come, first-served" approach for bounties, where a pull request meeting a certain quality threshold would be considered a preliminary claim. Subsequent refinement could then occur through the code review process. However, with batched code reviews, there is no advantage to early submissions, as all are reviewed simultaneously. The second mover gains a strategic advantage with more information and time, potentially outperforming the initial contributor who invested significant time in exploration.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1842474008 --> @namrata676 commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2023): Hi Team, here is my feedback Setup Process: The setup process proceeded smoothly, although my focus was momentarily diverted by the contribution guide, which appears outdated in relation to the current build and development instructions. Contribution Process: The project boasts a well-maintained folder structure, facilitating easy navigation. The use of proper types and variable names enhances overall code readability. Review Process: I express my gratitude for the meticulous line-by-line code review conducted by the maintainer. The suggestions provided were clear and instrumental in resolving issues. Feedback/Comments Received: The feedback received during the code review was valuable. Suggestions for Improvement: I've observed a disparity between my expectations and the repository's submission acceptance rules. I anticipated a "first-come, first-served" approach for bounties, where a pull request meeting a certain quality threshold would be considered a preliminary claim. Subsequent refinement could then occur through the code review process. However, with batched code reviews, there is no advantage to early submissions, as all are reviewed simultaneously. The second mover gains a strategic advantage with more information and time, potentially outperforming the initial contributor who invested significant time in exploration.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@akank-shaa commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2023):

Greetings, @Mythie and Documenso group. I'm giving my input here.

Setup Process: The setup was quite simple and straightforward.
It is wonderful to use it as a freelancer. But yeah, there can be a possibility of evolution.

Contribution Process: The project is well-structured. It is also helpful to have guidelines related to contributions. It would have been beneficial to have a PR template. I was also unable to locate any code convention documents.

Review Process: Appreciation!!! So responsive! So Amazing!

Comments/Feedback Received: Indeed! It was great experience.
I was able to use the feedback in actionable way.

Advice for Enhancement:
An explanatory way needed in some of the dependencies in the start.
The video was very short.
The time consumed in the review process can be cut down.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1842752295 --> @akank-shaa commented on GitHub (Dec 6, 2023): Greetings, @Mythie and Documenso group. I'm giving my input here. Setup Process: The setup was quite simple and straightforward. It is wonderful to use it as a freelancer. But yeah, there can be a possibility of evolution. Contribution Process: The project is well-structured. It is also helpful to have guidelines related to contributions. It would have been beneficial to have a PR template. I was also unable to locate any code convention documents. Review Process: Appreciation!!! So responsive! So Amazing! Comments/Feedback Received: Indeed! It was great experience. I was able to use the feedback in actionable way. Advice for Enhancement: An explanatory way needed in some of the dependencies in the start. The video was very short. The time consumed in the review process can be cut down.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@Shyam-Raghuwanshi commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2023):

Setup Process:
The setup process was relatively smooth. The provided instructions were clear, and I was able to set up the development environment without significant issues. However, I did face a minor challenge with configuring a specific library due to version compatibility, but I managed to resolve it by consulting relevant documentation.

Contribution Process:
Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience overall. The project's documentation was helpful in understanding the code structure and the contribution guidelines. One obstacle I faced was related to integrating my changes with the existing codebase. Although the documentation covered most scenarios, a bit more guidance on specific integration patterns could have been beneficial.

Review Process:
The review process was effective, and I appreciated the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers. The comments were clear and helped me understand the areas for improvement. The communication with the reviewers was prompt, and they were open to addressing any questions or concerns I had. It was a collaborative experience, and I felt supported throughout the review phase.

Feedback/Comments Received:
The feedback I received during the hackathon was valuable and actionable. The reviewers pointed out areas where my code could be optimized and provided suggestions for improvement. It significantly enhanced the quality of my contributions and helped me grow as a developer.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Provide additional troubleshooting tips in the setup guide for potential issues that contributors might face during the environment setup.
2. Consider expanding the documentation with more integration examples to assist contributors in seamlessly integrating their changes with the existing codebase.
3. Encourage reviewers to include more positive feedback alongside constructive criticism to reinforce good practices and foster a positive contribution environment.

Overall, my experience was positive, and I appreciate the effort put into creating a welcoming and collaborative environment for contributors.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1845036384 --> @Shyam-Raghuwanshi commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2023): **Setup Process:** The setup process was relatively smooth. The provided instructions were clear, and I was able to set up the development environment without significant issues. However, I did face a minor challenge with configuring a specific library due to version compatibility, but I managed to resolve it by consulting relevant documentation. **Contribution Process:** Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience overall. The project's documentation was helpful in understanding the code structure and the contribution guidelines. One obstacle I faced was related to integrating my changes with the existing codebase. Although the documentation covered most scenarios, a bit more guidance on specific integration patterns could have been beneficial. **Review Process:** The review process was effective, and I appreciated the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers. The comments were clear and helped me understand the areas for improvement. The communication with the reviewers was prompt, and they were open to addressing any questions or concerns I had. It was a collaborative experience, and I felt supported throughout the review phase. **Feedback/Comments Received:** The feedback I received during the hackathon was valuable and actionable. The reviewers pointed out areas where my code could be optimized and provided suggestions for improvement. It significantly enhanced the quality of my contributions and helped me grow as a developer. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1. Provide additional troubleshooting tips in the setup guide for potential issues that contributors might face during the environment setup. 2. Consider expanding the documentation with more integration examples to assist contributors in seamlessly integrating their changes with the existing codebase. 3. Encourage reviewers to include more positive feedback alongside constructive criticism to reinforce good practices and foster a positive contribution environment. Overall, my experience was positive, and I appreciate the effort put into creating a welcoming and collaborative environment for contributors.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@whocoder11 commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2023):

Setup Process:
Setting up the development environment was a relatively smooth process. The provided instructions were clear and helped me get everything up and running without much trouble. The documentation was helpful in understanding the codebase and its dependencies.

Contribution Process:
Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience overall. The project had a well-defined structure, and the guidelines for contributions were clear. I faced no major obstacles, and the team was supportive, providing assistance promptly whenever needed.

Review Process:
The review process was constructive and valuable. Reviewers provided detailed feedback on my contributions, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. The feedback was actionable, helping me enhance the quality of my code. Communication with reviewers was effective, and I appreciated the collaborative approach.

Feedback/Comments Received:
The feedback I received during the hackathon was insightful and actionable. It provided guidance on improving code readability and optimizing certain functions. The comments were specific and helped me understand the project's coding standards better.

Suggestions for Improvement:
One suggestion for improvement could be to streamline the onboarding process further for new contributors. Providing a more comprehensive overview of the project's architecture and code organization in the documentation might benefit those who are new to the codebase.

<!-- gh-comment-id:1845066772 --> @whocoder11 commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2023): **Setup Process:** Setting up the development environment was a relatively smooth process. The provided instructions were clear and helped me get everything up and running without much trouble. The documentation was helpful in understanding the codebase and its dependencies. **Contribution Process:** Contributing to the codebase was a positive experience overall. The project had a well-defined structure, and the guidelines for contributions were clear. I faced no major obstacles, and the team was supportive, providing assistance promptly whenever needed. **Review Process:** The review process was constructive and valuable. Reviewers provided detailed feedback on my contributions, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. The feedback was actionable, helping me enhance the quality of my code. Communication with reviewers was effective, and I appreciated the collaborative approach. **Feedback/Comments Received:** The feedback I received during the hackathon was insightful and actionable. It provided guidance on improving code readability and optimizing certain functions. The comments were specific and helped me understand the project's coding standards better. **Suggestions for Improvement:** One suggestion for improvement could be to streamline the onboarding process further for new contributors. Providing a more comprehensive overview of the project's architecture and code organization in the documentation might benefit those who are new to the codebase.

kerem commented 2026-02-26 18:45:56 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023):

🎉🎈 @SohamJack003 has been awarded $25! 🎈🎊

<!-- gh-comment-id:1853569737 --> @algora-pbc[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023): 🎉🎈 @SohamJack003 has been awarded **$25**! 🎈🎊

kerem referenced this issue 2026-02-26 18:48:58 +03:00

[PR #213] [CLOSED] feat: dropzone transition animation #796

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag specified

Branches Tags

main

chore/translations

feat/signing-required-field-colors

feat/add-field-overflow-settings

chore/extract-translations

release

feat/public-completed-document-access

feat/bulk-download

docs/signing-reminders

feat/document-file-conversion

feat/prefetch-intent-navigation-links

fix/lint-project

fix/replace-linter-with-biome

fix/security-improvements

perf/dynamic-import-posthog

deps/vite-8

chore/migrate-eslint-prettier-to-oxlint-oxfmt

chore/migrate-to-pnpm

feat/add-pdf-image-renderer

feat/add-embed-v2

fix/extract-emails

feat/table-toolbar-filters

copilot/sub-pr-2478

fix/recipients-send-500

feat/external-2fa-codes

feat/protect-signing-urls

fix/checkbox-checked-values

duncan/legacy-api-endpoints

chore/block-po-files-locally

fix/default-embed-v2-document-rejection-to-false

fix/fields-dialog-title-description

copilot/sub-pr-2323

copilot/sub-pr-2267

exp/autoplace-fields

chore/server-hostname-config

fix/template-add-signers

fix/add-field-drag-drop-colors

fix/envelope-updates

feat/allow-formdata

archive/1.13.2

copilot/add-billing-section-account-page

fix/field-coordinate-bounds

feat/update-user-via-admin-dashboard

feat/expiry-links

feat/team-dashboard

feat/change-radio-direction

feat/admin-create-user-with-org

archive/v1.12.11

feat/envelopes-polish

feat/add-attachments-reworked

fix/font-size-fields

feat/improve-resend-dialog

fix/download-certificate-audit-log-safari

fix/duplicate-document-by-id

feat/document-table-filters

fix/template-migration

exp/effect

fix/migrate-template-metadata

exp/keyboard-signature

feat/document-2fa-redo

feat/add-attachments

feat/billing-redirect-flow

fix/add-api-logging

fix/duplicate-document-template-review

feat/handle-redirectto-param

feat/document-processing-status-indicator

feat/customize-doc-audit-log-certificate

feat/document-2fa

feat/organisations-backup-pls

feat/audit-logs-on-completed-document

chore/webhook-trigger-multiselect

exp/bg

chore/single-signer-wording

fix/template-uploading

feat/bin-tab

fix/staging-test

feat/rr7

squish/rr7

archive/nextjs

power-signer

fix/field-placements

fix/team-member-invites

fix/checkbox-field-bugs

fix/leaderboard-query

fix/zapier-list-documents-endpoint

feat/dictate-signers

feat/allow-same-signer-email-multiple-times

wip/rr7-next

experiment/self-sign

fix/oidc-login-error

feat/document-qrcode

feat/mau

feat/copy-links-audit-logs

chore/december-dep-upgrades

wip/rr7

wip/rr7-auth-package

wip/rr7-better-auth-demo

experiment/what-if-user-ids-were-strings-instead-of-numbers

fix/refactor-api-routes

feat/add-owner-completed-email-setting

fix/embed-whitelabel-colors

feat/delete-archive

fun/sign-with-nose

expiry-links

chore/openpage-viral-metrics

fix/sitemap

feat/signing-reminder

feat/automated-fields-signature

feat/add-polish-translations

staging

fix/open-page

openpage-api-deploy

feat/pulumi

chore/angular-embed-docs

exp/next-15

chore/select-signer

feat/save-data-on-blur

feat/save-recipients-on-blur

feat/signature-color

feat/team-email-template

chore/documenso-url

chore/add-ctas

fix/docker-setup-and-documentation

fix/document-creation-timezone

feat/telemetry

feat/integration-animation

fix/render-deployment

feat/publicProfile

feat/redirect-templates

feat/passkey-dialog

fix/refactor-use-template

chore/resend-onUpdate

chore/subject-onBlur

fix/demo-trpc-duration

fix/self-signer-custom-email-message

fix/benchmark

feat/add-myself-as-signer-temp

feat/checkbox-type

feat/update-marketing-header

experiment/queue

feat/error-demo

feat/add-document-auth-options

feat/document-2fa-test

chore/status-widget

open-page-restructure

feat/document-passkey-test

chore/form-reset

fix/neon-db-migration-test

feat/public-profile

feat/launch-week-content

webhooks_plus_api

exp/custom-field-labels

feat/accept-text-signature

feat/document-version-history

fix/delete-recipient-owners

fix/whitespace-title

feat/refresh

exp/million

feat/doc-comments

ElTimuro-patch-1

feat/teams-slugify

pr/537

date-format-setting

exp/millionjs

feat/runtime-env

chore/next-14

feat/chat-with-documents

feat/plan-limits

fix/467-bugsafari-only-unable-to-copy-document-sharing-link

feat/admin-ui-manage-instance

feat/stripe-free-tier

fix/cascade-delete-share-links

feat/marketing-share-document

feat/single-player-mode-polish

feat/next-13-5-3

chore/github-templates

docs/render-deploy

chore/code-of-conduct

chore/team

feat/add-e2e-testing

docs/minor-readme-updatess

docs/dx

feat-early-adopters

feat/open-early-adopters

fix/432-signee-doc-version-doesnt-have-sticky-signing-area

fix/446-cancel-cta-does-nothing-when-a-signer-opens-the-document

fix/445-signer-name-not-persisting

feat/resend-transport

fix/incorrect-completed-stats

feat/update-email-templates

feat/mania

feat/copy-or-tweet

feat/add-design-system-page

feat/single-player-mode

feat/completed-share-link

feat/designsystem

feat/send-email

feat/custom-emails

blog/upcoming-blog-post

feat/single-player-mode-test

feat/reset-password

blog/selfhosting-blog-post

feat/redirect-signed-document

fix/og-description

feat/universal-upload

chore/readme

chore/blogposts

fix/building-documenso-description

feat/admin-ui-metrics

feat/avatar-fallback

feat/templates

feat/blog-post-next

fix/hide-user-selection

feat/disable-sign

feat/marketing-mobile-nav

chore/remove-console-log-warn

feat/add-email-field

fix/redirect-signin-to-dashboard

feat/blog-og-image

feat/redirect-on-send

feat/billing-page

feat/profile-password-form

fix/signature-color-dark-mode

feat/inbox

feat/promise-safety

readme

chore/reduce-refetch-time

feat/update-document-flow

feat/refactor-shared-components

feat/feature-flag

feat/document-authoring

feat/pie-chart-legend

feat/open-page

docs/add-gitpod-setup

docs/add-render-deploy

docs-coventional-commits

feat/table-actions

minor/updates-google-auth-refresh

feat/add-document-animation

feat/new-email-template

feat/password-reset

fix/send-error-double-send

fix/improve-stripe-webhook-endpoint

feat/support-custom-cert-paths

feat/DOC-170-add-name-field

fix/improve-general-styling

feat/DOC-210-sign-dialog-broken-on-second-opening

bugfix-#71/invalid-email-hint

chore/optimise-deps

test-pr

v2.9.1

v2.9.0

v2.8.1

v2.8.0

v2.7.1

v2.7.0

v2.6.1

v2.6.0

v2.5.1

v2.5.0

v2.4.0

v2.3.2

v2.3.1

v2.3.0

v2.2.8

v2.2.7

v2.2.6

v2.2.5

v2.2.4

v2.2.3

v2.2.2

v2.2.1

v2.2.0

v2.1.0

v2.0.14

v2.0.13

v2.0.12

v2.0.11

v2.0.10

v2.0.9

v2.0.8

v2.0.7

v2.0.6

v2.0.5

v2.0.4

v2.0.3

v2.0.2

v2.0.1

v2.0.0

v1.13.2

v1.13.1

v1.13.0

v1.12.10

v1.12.9

v1.12.8

v1.12.7

v1.12.6

v1.12.5

v1.12.4

v1.12.3

v1.12.2-rc.6

v1.12.2-rc.5

v1.12.2-rc.4

v1.12.2-rc.3

v1.12.2-rc.2

v1.12.2-rc.1

v1.12.2-rc.0

v1.12.1

v1.12.0

v1.12.0-rc.8

v1.12.0-rc.7

v1.12.0-rc.6

v1.12.0-rc.5

v1.12.0-rc.4

v1.12.0-rc.3

v1.12.0-rc.2

v1.12.0-rc.1

v1.12.0-rc.0

v1.11.1

v1.11.0

v1.10.3

v1.10.2

v1.10.1

v1.10.0

v1.10.0-rc.5

v1.10.0-rc.4

v1.10.0-rc.3

v1.10.0-rc.2

v1.10.0-rc.1

v1.10.0-rc.0

v1.9.1-rc.9

v1.9.1

v1.9.1-rc.8

v1.9.1-rc.7

v1.9.1-rc.6

v1.9.1-rc.5

v1.9.1-rc.4

v1.9.1-rc.3

v1.9.1-rc.2

v1.9.1-rc.1

v1.9.1-rc.0

v1.9.0

v1.9.0-rc.12

v1.9.0-rc.11

v1.9.0-rc.10

v1.9.0-rc.9

v1.9.0-rc.8

v1.9.0-rc.7

v1.9.0-rc.6

v1.9.0-rc.5

final-marketing-release

v1.9.0-rc.4

v1.9.0-rc.3

v1.9.0-rc.2

v1.9.0-rc.1

v1.9.0-rc.0

v1.8.1

v1.8.1-rc.9

v1.8.1-rc.8

v1.8.1-rc.7

v1.8.1-rc.6

v1.8.1-rc.5

v1.8.1-rc.4

v1.8.1-rc.3

v1.8.1-rc.2

v1.8.1-rc.1

v1.8.1-rc.0

v1.8.0-rc.4

v1.8.0

v1.8.0-rc.3

v1.8.0-rc.2

v1.8.0-rc.1

v1.8.0-rc.0

v1.7.2

v1.7.2-rc.4

v1.7.2-rc.3

v1.7.2-rc.2

v1.7.2-rc.1

v1.7.2-rc.0

v1.7.1-rc.3

v1.7.1

v1.7.1-rc.2

v1.7.1-rc.1

v1.7.1-rc.0

v1.7.0

v1.7.0-rc.5

v1.7.0-rc.4

v1.7.0-rc.3

v1.7.0-rc.2

v1.7.0-rc.1

v1.7.0-rc.0

v1.6.1

v1.6.1-rc.1

v1.6.1-rc.0

v1.6.0

v1.6.0-rc.3

v1.6.0-rc.2

v1.6.0-rc.1

v1.6.0-rc.0

v1.5.6

v1.5.6-rc.4

v1.5.6-rc.3

v1.5.6-rc.2

v1.5.6-rc.1

v1.5.6-rc.0

v1.5.5-rc.8

v1.5.5

v1.5.5-rc.7

v1.5.5-rc.6

v1.5.5-rc.5

v1.5.5-rc.4

v1.5.5-rc.3

v1.5.5-rc.2

v1.5.5-rc.1

v1.5.5-rc.0

v1.5.4-rc.5

v1.5.4

v1.5.4-rc.4

v1.5.4-rc.3

v1.5.4-rc.2

v1.5.4-rc.1

v1.5.4-rc.0

v1.5.3-rc.1

v1.5.3

v1.5.3-rc.0

v1.5.2-rc.8

v1.5.2

v1.5.2-rc.7

v1.5.2-rc.6

v1.5.2-rc.5

v1.5.2-rc.4

v1.5.2-rc.3

v1.5.2-rc.2

v1.5.2-rc.1

v1.5.2-rc.0

v1.5.1

v1.5.1-rc.0

v1.5.0-rc.6

v1.5.0

v1.5.0-rc.5

v1.5.0-rc.4

v1.5.0-rc.3

v1.5.0-rc.2

v1.5.0-rc.1

v1.5.0-rc.0

v1.4.0-rc.0

v1.4.0

v1.3.2-rc.0

v1.3.1-rc.2

v1.3.1

v1.3.1-rc.1

v1.3.1-rc.0

v1.3.0-rc.2

v1.3.0

v1.3.0-rc.1

v1.3.0-rc.0

v1.2.3

v1.2.2

v1.2.1

v1.2.0

v1.1

v1.0

v0.9

before-prettier

0.9-developer-preview

Labels

Clear labels   

Compliance

  

Stale

  

apps: marketing

  

apps: web

  

community

  

component: api

  

component: integrations

  

component: ui

  

duplicate

  

effort: low

  

effort: medium

  

good first issue

  

hacktoberfest

  

help wanted

  

needs triage

  

needs-replication

  

needs-testing

  

on-hold

  

osshack

  

priority: high

  

priority: low

  

priority: medium

  

pull-request

Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request

  

question

  

roadmap

  

status: assigned

  

status: blocked

  

status: in progress

  

status: triage

  

type: bug

  

type: bug

  

type: bug

  

type: documentation

  

type: enhancement

  

type: feature

  

wontfix

  

💎 Bounty

  

💰 Rewarded

  

💰 Rewarded

No labels

Compliance

Stale

apps: marketing

apps: web

community

component: api

component: integrations

component: ui

duplicate

effort: low

effort: medium

good first issue

hacktoberfest

help wanted

needs triage

needs-replication

needs-testing

on-hold

osshack

priority: high

priority: low

priority: medium

pull-request

question

roadmap

status: assigned

status: blocked

status: in progress

status: triage

type: bug

type: bug

type: bug

type: documentation

type: enhancement

type: feature

wontfix

💎 Bounty

💰 Rewarded

💰 Rewarded

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

starred/documenso#213

No description provided.