contributionlinuxopen source

Contributing to a Linux Distro: How to Pitch UI Improvements and Get Them Merged

UUnknown

2026-02-22

9 min read

Practical guide to pitching UI improvements to a trade-free, Mac-like Linux distro—covers RFCs, packaging (PKGBUILD/Flatpak), CI, code review, and maintainer etiquette.

Hook: Your UI idea is good — but getting it merged is harder than shipping it

You're a developer or designer who loves clean, Mac-like UIs and you found a trade-free Linux distro that matches that aesthetic. You see the imperfections: a cramped dock, inconsistent spacing, or a missing animation that would make the UX feel polished. You forked the repo, made the change locally, and opened a patch — then radio silence, or a long list of stylistic nitpicks from maintainers. This guide shows a repeatable path from idea → polished proposal → CI-green patch that maintainers actually merge in 2026.

The executive summary (most important first)

Start small, communicate early, and package your work correctly. In 10 steps: research the codebase and design system, open an RFC or issue, produce mockups and a short user study, implement changes following the repo's coding standards, add tests and CI, package the change (PKGBUILD/Flatpak/Deb), submit a clean patch/PR with clear commit messages and DCO/GPG signatures, respond respectfully to reviews, and help with release packaging or backporting.

Why this matters in 2026

Wayland and GTK4/libadwaita are the new baseline for Mac-like Linux desktops; patches that ignore Wayland quirks often fail or cause regressions.
Supply-chain security and reproducible builds are standard. Maintainers expect signed commits, CI artifacts, and deterministic packaging metadata (SBOMs are common).
Design systems are more formal — consistency across icons, spacing, and motion is enforced by style guides; proposals that include mockups and motion specs merge faster.

Quick checklist before you write a single line of code

Read CONTRIBUTING.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT — this is non-negotiable.
Scan open issues and PRs — find similar proposals and learn why some were rejected.
Find the design system (if any) or existing CSS/GTK theme files to match spacing, colors, and motion curves.
Check packaging format(s): PKGBUILD (Arch/Manjaro), Flatpak, deb — prepare to build for the distro’s workflow.
Validate on Wayland and X11 if the distro supports both; test high-DPI and screen-reader accessibility.

Step 1 — Pitch first: open an RFC/issue, not a PR

Submit a short, structured issue before coding. Maintain a respectful tone and provide context: who benefits, how it maps to the distro’s trade-free values, and screens to be affected.

Use this issue template (short):

Title: RFC: Improve dock spacing & motion for 4K screens

Summary:
- What: Increase dock icon spacing and add subtle hover lift animation
- Why: High-DPI users report mis-taps; consistent motion aligns with distro design
- Scope: Dock component (src/shell/dock/*) and theme variables

Mockups: https://imgur.com/xxx
Potential impact: Low risk; pure UI change

Add images, a short GIF, and optional a 30-second screencast. Good visual context accelerates approval.

Step 2 — Prototype and validate

Create a quick prototype so reviewers can test without diving into code. In 2026, you can use two effective routes:

Run a local build and produce a patched package (PKGBUILD or deb) and attach the package artifact to the issue.
Provide a Flatpak dev build or a containerized test image (podman/docker) that installs over a live session.

Small A/B usability checks matter: ask 5–10 contributors to try your prototype and collect a few datapoints (click accuracy, perceived responsiveness). Summarize in the issue.

Step 3 — Follow coding and design standards

Before coding, identify linters and style guides in the repo. Common checks in 2026:

GTK/JS or GTK/C style conventions (indent, naming) — often enforced by eslint or clang-format.
CSS/SCSS formatting and variables for theme tokens — reuse existing tokens instead of adding new ones.
Accessibility: keyboard focus, role attributes, alt text, and contrast ratios.

Automate formatting locally:

# Example commands (adjust per project)
npm install
npm run lint -- --fix
clang-format -i src/**/*.c

Step 4 — Implement with tests and CI in mind

Add unit and integration tests around behavior changes where feasible. For UI changes, include automated smoke tests and visual regression checks (pixel-diff or perceptual hashing) — many projects use GitHub Actions + playwright or percy in 2026.

Example: add a small Playwright test that checks dock icon spacing stays consistent across DPIs:

test('dock spacing 1x vs 2x', async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto('app://dock-test');
  const spacing = await page.evaluate(() => getComputedStyle(document.querySelector('.dock')).gap);
  expect(Number(spacing.replace('px',''))).toBeGreaterThan(8);
});

Document local steps to run tests in your PR description.

Step 5 — Packaging: make it simple for maintainers to test

Maintain the distro’s expected packaging path. For a Manjaro/Arch-base, that's usually a PKGBUILD and an entry in the repo's package tree. For trade-free distros that prefer immutable models, a Flatpak or OSTree commit might be required.

PKGBUILD example (minimal)

pkgname=dock-improvements
pkgver=0.1
pkgrel=1
arch=('x86_64')
source=("https://example.com/dock-improvements-${pkgver}.tar.gz")
build() {
  cd "$srcdir/$pkgname-$pkgver"
  meson build --prefix=/usr
  ninja -C build
}
package() {
  DESTDIR="$pkgdir" ninja -C build install
}

For Flatpak, add a simple manifest that builds your patched binary and runs on the distro runtime; maintainers often prefer Flatpak artifacts for UI proofs because they are sandboxed and reproducible.

Step 6 — Write a clear patch and PR description

Your PR is a sales pitch and a QA checklist combined. Use these sections:

Summary — one sentence describing the change and user-visible impact.
Motivation — link to the original issue/RFC and any metrics or user feedback.
Implementation — short technical notes, files changed, and why you chose the approach.
How to test — step-by-step commands to run locally plus CI expectations.
Backwards compatibility — list potential regressions and mitigations.
Packaging — attached PKGBUILD/Flatpak manifest or instructions for maintainers.

Include reproducible build artifacts when possible. Attach screenshots/GIFs. If your change requires a schema migration or DB change, provide a one-liner to revert.

Step 7 — Respect maintainers: communication & etiquette

“Respect maintainers’ time — provide context, remove surprises, and be patient.”

Key rules:

Tag relevant maintainers but don't ping repeatedly — follow the repo policy on mentions.
Break big patches into small, reviewable commits; use feature branches named like feature/dock-spacing-2026.
Include Signed-off-by or follow the project's Contributor License Agreement (CLA) or DCO process.
When reviewers request changes, respond by addressing comments or explaining trade-offs. If you disagree, explain calmly and provide evidence (benchmarks, accessibility tests).

Step 8 — Handle code review like a pro

Anticipate common review topics:

Performance: measure animation CPU/GPU impact. Use small flamegraphs or screenshot frame rates.
Accessibility: keyboard navigation, screen reader labels, and sufficient contrast.
Consistency: align with theme tokens and existing motion curves.
Security: ensure no new IPC surfaces or protocol changes without threat modeling.

Reply to comments with concrete changes and update your PR branch. Keep commit messages atomic: one behavior or fix per commit.

Step 9 — Continuous Integration and reproducible builds

CI is your friend — use the repo’s CI and add tests to the pipeline if you can. Typical pipeline stages in 2026:

Lint and format
Unit tests and headless UI smoke tests
Visual regression tests
Build and package (artifact upload)
SBOM generation and signature verification

If CI is flaky, run the same job locally using containers or the repo’s runner image and provide a clean log in the PR. Maintainers often reject PRs with failing CI until the author stabilizes them.

Step 10 — After merge: help with backports, packaging, and release notes

Merely merging to main is rarely enough. Typical next steps contributors can do to add value:

Create packages for stable branches or LTS kernels if requested.
Prepare release notes entry that explains the change in user terms and lists any opt-in flags.
Offer to shepherd the change into the distro's build system (AUR package, repo package, Flatpak remote).
Monitor post-merge issues for regressions for a week and be ready to open a hotfix if necessary.

Practical examples & mini case study

Scenario: You improve dock hit targets and add hover lift with a 40ms animation. How you’d proceed:

Open issue RFC with mockups and a quick user survey: 7/10 users prefer larger spacing.
Prototype using CSS variables and a GTK style override — ship as Flatpak dev build for testers.
Create PR with: small commits (spacing token, animation token, unit tests, Flatpak manifest), a Playwright test, and a PKGBUILD.
Run CI locally and attach logs. Address reviewer feedback: reduce animation duration and add reduced-motion preference support.
After merge, create an AUR package and a Flatpak remote so testers can install the change immediately.

Outcome: merged in 12 days, maintainers praised the quality of the RFC and the test coverage. A follow-up telemetry-free opt-in metric showed improved first-click accuracy by ~12% (voluntary opt-in data).

Tools and resources you should know in 2026

Design: Figma, Inkscape, Zeplin for spec exports
Testing: Playwright, Puppeteer, percy, webdriverio
Packaging: makepkg/PKGBUILD, debhelper/pbuilder, Flatpak-builder, ostree/cosa
CI/CD: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Buildkite, Arch's ABF, Nix/CI for reproducible builds
Security: GPG commit signing, SBOM generators, OpenSSF SLSA guidelines

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Too-big PRs: Split changes; one PR per component.
No tests: Add smoke tests or explain why testing is infeasible.
Packaging mismatch: Build the same package type the distro uses. If unsure, ask in the issue for packaging preference.
Ignoring preferred design tokens: Reuse tokens; adding new tokens needs maintainers’ sign-off.
Skipping accessibility: Always test keyboard navigation and assistive tech where possible.

Advanced strategies that increase merge probability

Offer multiple implementation options (minimal opt-in vs. full default) and explain trade-offs.
Provide real-world performance numbers: CPU/GPU cost for animations on low-end machines.
Pair with a maintainer for a live review session — real-time feedback shortens cycles.
Document a rollback plan and a hotfix branch to reduce risk for maintainers.

Final checklist before you click Submit

Does the PR have a short, clear summary and link to the RFC/issue?
Are mocks, GIFs, and test artifacts attached?
Does CI pass and tests run locally?
Is packaging included and runnable by maintainers?
Have you followed signing, DCO/CLA rules, and style guides?

Closing: a call to action for contributors

Contributing meaningful UI improvements to a trade-free, Mac-like Linux distro in 2026 is less about raw code and more about communication, reproducibility, and respect for the distro’s design and security posture. Start with an RFC, prototype for quick feedback, adhere to coding and packaging standards, and treat maintainers as collaborators, not gatekeepers.

Ready to ship your first UI change? Open an issue with a one-paragraph RFC and a mockup — and paste the link into the project's community chat or issue tracker. If you want a quick review of your RFC or PR before you post, share the link here and I’ll give practical feedback on packaging, CI, and wording to improve your merge odds.

Unknown

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.