fjall-rs/fjall - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

🗻 Log-structured, embeddable key-value storage engine written in Rust

C-Rank Grade: B (Solid) - 55/100

External PR Merge Rate: 44%

Response Time: 20h

First Timer Success: 100%

Frequently Asked Questions

Is fjall-rs/fjall welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

fjall-rs/fjall has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. Repositories ranked B typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

Maintainers in fjall-rs/fjall respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 20.2 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.

What does the 55.4 C-Rank™ score (B Tier) represent?

The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 55.4 places fjall-rs/fjall in the B tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for fjall-rs/fjall?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for fjall-rs/fjall is 44.4%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in fjall-rs/fjall?

fjall-rs/fjall currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

fjall-rs
fjall-rs/fjallB•Solid2.4k
GitHub
Back to Explorer
fjall-rs

fjall-rs/fjall

2,363
Active (30d)B•Solid(55/100)Low Sample (<20 PRs)Rust

🗻 Log-structured, embeddable key-value storage engine written in Rust

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Strict Architecture Gatekeeper

Warmth Score
7.3/10
Patience Score
8.0/10
Nitpick Rate
30%

Strict review standards in fjall-rs/fjall. Ensure PR scope matches issue requirements closely before requesting review.

What Contributors Actually Say

Discussions in fjall-rs/fjall focus heavily on practical implementation feedback, code formatting standards, and issue reproduction details.

Hidden Friction Signals

Unlinked PRs without issue context and changes that fail automated test suites face the highest review friction.

Unwritten Rules

  • •1) Keep PR scope strictly aligned with the linked issue.
  • •2) Ensure local linters pass before opening a review.
  • •3) Maintain full test coverage for modified logic.

Top PR Submission Do's

  • •Add or update tests for changed behavior before requesting review
  • •Update docs or README when behavior changes
  • •Keep PRs small and focused on one change

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not leave requested test coverage unresolved
  • •Do not ship user-facing changes without matching docs
  • •Do not mix unrelated refactors with feature work
Response Velocity
20 hours
Standard maintainer review cycle

Average Response Latency

Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.

Merge Efficiency
44.4%
Moderate PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
100.0%
Strong first-timer PR acceptance rate

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
4 core
Small core review team
Diagnostic Health HUD
44.4%
Merge Gauge
100.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe63/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.

GetMerged C-Rank badge for fjall-rs/fjall
[![GetMerged C-Rank](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/api/badge/fjall-rs/fjall)](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/fjall-rs/fjall?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)

Active Good First Issues (3)

View on GitHub

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Currently, configuration parameters like .staleness_threshold() and .age_cutoff() are persistently serialized and hardcoded into the internal System Keyspace metadata upon initialization. Because of this design, these parameters become completely immutable. Even if we modify the configuration values in the code and rebuild or restart the system, the database entirely ignores the new code settings and strictly adheres to the original values fetched from the System Keyspace. If a user initially sets suboptimal thresholds and later faces critical disk space pressure, they are completely locked out from adjusting the cleanup intensity. Since these parameters only dictate the background GC/compaction heuristic logic and do not alter the core data format (unlike block size), locking them into the System Keyspace permanently creates an unnecessary and rigid limitation. Describe the solution you'd like I would like to make these co

📅 Opened Jul 6, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 55/100Contribute

Describe the bug We've noticed that our application tends to accumulate journal segments; every once in a while, a sealed journal will get "stuck" and won't get cleared after recovery. Once this happens, of course, no subsequent sealed journals can ever get cleared so the journal size grows without bound until the application gets so bloated that startup can't finish within the kubernetes startup probe timeout and it breaks. In the cases I've examined, the journal contains a record pointing to a keyspace that isn't actively being used on this instance, whose memtable is empty. In this case, the table can never be flushed (the super_version.active_memtable.is_empty() call in lsm-tree return false), so we can never actually increase the persisted seqno and never get the journal out. One possible way to create this scenario is to make a call to clear() for a keyspace, but do no subsequent writes. It's still tricky to do this because you need to end up sealing that journal (so you need to

📅 Opened May 5, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 30/100Contribute

I'm working on an application which sometimes streams entire keyspaces between nodes. This works fine today (the sender just iterates all the keys and the receiver puts them in place), but there seems to be no way for me to get the KeyspaceCreateOptions for a given keyspace and forward them along. I can modify my application to handle this (by, say, serializing the create options as a specially-named key at keyspace creation time), but this isn't ideal and I'd love an API to introspect the KeyspaceCreateOptions from an existing keyspace. I know there's .is_kv_separated() but I didn't see any other APIs to introspect keyspaces. Thanks!

📅 Opened Mar 4, 2026💬 1 comment
Quality: 45/100Contribute
Looking for more Rust beginner tasks?Explore Rust GFI

Contributor Community Vibe Feedback

Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.

Have you contributed to this repo?

Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.

3 ratings required
Maintainer helpfulness
Review speed
Beginner friendliness

Contributor Compatibility & Review Speed Analysis for fjall-rs/fjall

When evaluating whether to contribute to fjall-rs/fjall, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.

Currently, maintainers of fjall-rs/fjall acknowledge new external contributions in approximately 20 hours. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 44.4% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to fjall-rs/fjall

01

Is fjall-rs/fjall welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

fjall-rs/fjall has a recorded first-timer success rate of 100.0%. Repositories ranked Solid typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.

02

How fast can I expect code review feedback on my pull request?

The initial maintainer response time averages ~20 hours. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 55.4 C-Rank™ score represent?

The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 55.4 places fjall-rs/fjall in the Solid tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for fjall-rs/fjall?

The external pull request merge rate is 44.4%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.

05

Are there beginner Good First Issues open in fjall-rs/fjall?

Yes, fjall-rs/fjall currently has 5 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.

GetMerged C-Rank™ Indexing Standard

All metrics displayed for fjall-rs/fjall are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.