nferhat/fht-compositor - Open Source PR Review Scorecard

A dynamic tiling Wayland compositor.

C-Rank Grade: D (Risky) - 8/100

External PR Merge Rate: -

Response Time: -

First Timer Success: -

Frequently Asked Questions

Is nferhat/fht-compositor welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

nferhat/fht-compositor has a recorded first-timer success rate of 0.0%. Repositories ranked D 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 nferhat/fht-compositor 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.

What does the 7.5 C-Rank™ score (D 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 7.5 places nferhat/fht-compositor in the D tier.

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for nferhat/fht-compositor?

The external contributor pull request merge rate for nferhat/fht-compositor is 0.0%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.

Are there Good First Issues available in nferhat/fht-compositor?

nferhat/fht-compositor currently has 4 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".

nferhat
nferhat/fht-compositorD•Risky283
GitHub
Back to Explorer
nferhat

nferhat/fht-compositor

283
InactiveD•Risky(8/100)Low Sample (<20 PRs)Rust

A dynamic tiling Wayland compositor.

GitHub
Compare••
Jump to:

AI Maintainer Review Guidelines

Review Persona

Empathetic Technical Mentor

Warmth Score
7.5/10
Patience Score
8.2/10
Nitpick Rate
20%

Collaborative maintainer environment in nferhat/fht-compositor. Reviews community pull requests with focus on project quality.

What Contributors Actually Say

Discussions in nferhat/fht-compositor 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

  • •Ensure code complies with the project coding style
  • •Keep PRs scoped to a single concern
  • •Include context and link to the related issue

Top PR Friction Pitfalls (Don'ts)

  • •Do not submit PRs without linking an issue
  • •Do not break existing tests without fixing them
  • •Do not mix unrelated refactors in a single PR
Response Velocity
-
No reviewer activity recorded

Average Response Latency

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

Merge Efficiency
0.0%
Selective PR acceptance rate

External Acceptance Rate

Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.

First-Timer Success
0.0%
No first-timer merges recorded in window

First PR Conversion

Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.

Active Maintainers
CRITICAL BUS FACTOR
Single maintainer
No active GitHub maintainers found (may review internally on Gerrit or internal tools)
Diagnostic Health HUD
0.0%
Merge Gauge
0.0%
1st-Timer
Community Vibe0/100

Embed C-Rank Badge

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

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

Active Good First Issues (4)

View on GitHub

The current implementation of blur in the compositor right now is pretty bad. Notably: It relies on optimized blur (aka. X-Ray blur) by default, which is a sane default but many people want to have "true blur" True Blur (when enabled) destroys any damage tracking done by us. My initial implementation was extremely naive and I didn't bother to test it further, however this must change as more people are picking up the compositor and leaving such a lackluster implementation bothers me. The implementation breaks on scaled monitors. The implementation can potentially break on monitors that are not logically placed at (0, 0) (IE. the "origin" of the global space) A new implementation would rely on #100, and new advancements, notably Smithay/smithay#1946 and Smithay/smithay#1910, to accurately track damage. Implementations are going to be heavily inspired from Niri's and cosmic-comp's, even though they are based on this one, they figured out a lot of the details I skipped.

📅 Opened Apr 29, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

(Kinda) supersedes #44 Right now, the layout system in the compositor is extremely rigid and is pretty hostile to work on. If you want to introduce a new layout, you would have to write a lot of logic that's deeply intertwined with the Workspace type. Moreover, some layouts (such as the #77) might need to store some sort of data (for BSP it would be a cache of a computed window tree). Right now the only solution is to recompute all the data whenever layout data is requested. The proposed solution would be to separate layout into a Layout trait. This trait would implement common functions like Associating each window with a position and size Pre-computing the size of a window if inserted at position i Access to state of the layout that needs to be stored. ... and more Another thought that crossed my mind is to not rely on math hand-written by me (or layout authors) but instead delegate that to some existing layouting library like Taffy. We would create some custom nodes to pass into t

📅 Opened Apr 29, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

As of right now, windows get rendered in the following order: The windows marked with the rules.ontop = true property. The active/focused window, IE the one received keyboard input All the other windows, rendered in their order in the workspace window list. This causes a lot of problems regarding accessibility, for example see #129. There's also the confusion of "where is this window gotta end up after". A lot of times, a window can just happen to jump all the way behind another window that could be tiled, meaning you'd have to focus it with the keyboard. These issues are accentuated when general.focus-follows-mouse = true, where window focus changes really often. This can give pretty annoying scenarios. The proposed solution is to introduce the concept of Z-index to windows (which was present in an older release of fhtc before the first ever release). Handling of window rendering order would be done as follows: Get all the windows by Z-index Sort the window render list by Z-index

📅 Opened Apr 29, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 70/100Contribute

The purpose of this protocol is to enable the creation of taskbars and docks by providing them with a list of opened applications and letting them request certain actions on them, like maximizing, etc. https://wayland.app/protocols/wlr-foreign-toplevel-management-unstable-v1

📅 Opened Mar 15, 2026💬 0 comments
Quality: 15/100Contribute
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 nferhat/fht-compositor

When evaluating whether to contribute to nferhat/fht-compositor, 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 nferhat/fht-compositor acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 0.0% were successfully merged into the primary branch.

Frequently Asked Questions - Contributing to nferhat/fht-compositor

01

Is nferhat/fht-compositor welcoming to first-time open-source contributors?

nferhat/fht-compositor has a recorded first-timer success rate of 0.0%. Repositories ranked Risky 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 ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.

03

What does the 7.5 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 7.5 places nferhat/fht-compositor in the Risky tier.

04

What is the external contributor pull request merge rate for nferhat/fht-compositor?

The external pull request merge rate is 0.0%. 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 nferhat/fht-compositor?

Yes, nferhat/fht-compositor currently has 4 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 nferhat/fht-compositor 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.