I have opened pull request to the academic project, developed as a joined effort of few universities, and received numerous comments. They are all from the single reviewer that seems to be one of the lead developers.
Some of these comments are clearly "opinion based" and I could generally find arguments to say against. But doing as they want would also result a working code. Opinions only diverge on which version is more understandable and maintainable. I am also experienced, same as they are.
The possible approaches seem to be
- Comment on items I disagree with and do not apply changes to them. Of course, if they just refuse to merge without further talk, I am also with the loss.
- Apply all changes they like but explain why it was initially done differently.
- Do not comment, simply apply all changes as they see fit. This is my first contribution after all, I may better discuss on something later.
My goal is to earn the respect within that community and ultimately contribute more code to them. To achieve this goal, I am willing to comply with they point of view even if I myself think differently or my own experience just talks against.
Would a small amount of opposition help or hinder the attempts to build the respect? I do not want to provoke the conflict, but silent agreement might incorrectly indicate I am not competent enough to join the community (for the simplicity, let's assume I am).