Powerful system container and virtual machine manager
C-Rank Grade: A (Welcoming) - 64/100
External PR Merge Rate: 92%
Response Time: -
First Timer Success: 92%
lxc/incus has a recorded first-timer success rate of 92.0%. Repositories ranked A typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
Maintainers in lxc/incus respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.
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 64.3 places lxc/incus in the A tier.
The external contributor pull request merge rate for lxc/incus is 92.0%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.
lxc/incus currently has 1 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".
Balanced & professional review environment in lxc/incus. Maintains strict focus on technical quality and test standards.
Average Response Latency
Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.
External Acceptance Rate
Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.
First PR Conversion
Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.
Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.
[](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/lxc/incus?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)
Historical health & responsiveness evolution
External PR acceptance
First PR success rate
50% receive response in
90% receive response in
Maintainer review activity heatmap & prime window prediction
Calculating local time...
Calculating local time...
Detected: UTC
Maintainers are most responsive around 19:00 UTC (19:00 UTC in your timezone). Recommended submission window is Monday - Wednesday from 17:00 to 21:00 UTC (17:00 - 21:00 UTC local).
Limited recent maintainer review activity recorded for this repository. Prediction based on heuristic baseline.
Maintainer Strategy: Maintainer Sweet Spot: PRs under 150 lines merge in ~16 hours (96% approval). Large PRs (>500 lines) take ~115 hours (41% approval). Keep your diff compact for rapid review.
Enter your branch size and test coverage below to forecast review turnaround and get 1-click git splitting commands.
Alternative open-source projects with active maintainers in Go.
Manages access and synchronization between Couchbase Lite and Couchbase Server
A lightweight AWS service emulator written in Go
High-performance, low-latency note synchronization, online management, and remote REST API service platform.
Is there an existing issue for this? There is no existing issue for this feature What are you currently unable to do / What do you think would need to be added cephobject.radosgw.endpoint_cert_file should be deprecated in favor of a new cephobject.radosgw.endpoint_cert key, to be consistent with the rest of certificate-related configuration options.
Is there an existing issue for this? There is no existing issue for this bug Is this happening on an up to date version of Incus? This is happening on a supported version of Incus Incus system details Irrelevant Instance details No response Instance log No response Current behavior While translating command descriptions, I noticed that their descriptions are very irregular, and some elements are either inconsistent or just wrong: Some descriptions (both short and long) end with a period and some don’t; Some long descriptions are the same as the short ones, but with one or two words rephrased (which feels useless), sometimes with a singular/plural mismatch; Some commands suggest that long column format specifiers are accepted while it’s not the case from the source code; Some commands indicate “[…] that control which XXX attributes to output […]” with “XXX” being the wrong word(s); this happens at other places in some command descriptions; Some filter descriptions
Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.
Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.
When evaluating whether to contribute to lxc/incus, 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 lxc/incus acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 92.0% were successfully merged into the primary branch.
lxc/incus has a recorded first-timer success rate of 92.0%. Repositories ranked Welcoming typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
The initial maintainer response time averages ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.
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 64.3 places lxc/incus in the Welcoming tier.
The external pull request merge rate is 92.0%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.
Yes, lxc/incus currently has 1 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.
All metrics displayed for lxc/incus 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.