You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We've had some understandable confusion on when PRs get merged, as we came up with some exceptions to the "2 TSC approvals" rule in TDC calls. But not everyone is at every TDC call, nor can everyone be expected to remember everything that came up. So we should put PRs into draft, even if they are otherwise ready for merging, if we want to wait for a specific approval.
Just filing this b/c I don't have time to try to update DEVELOPMENT.md but we should do that at some point.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Another option is that we could define a minimum time for non-trivial PRs to remain open. (An examle of a trivial PR would be #3804, although we could use labels if we want to avoid vague heuristics).
"in draft" and "waiting for specific approval" seem contradictory to me. Is there a specific label that could be used here? Or assign the review to the tsc team? (Is there a merge policy that could be set up to require N reviews from that team before it can be merged, without getting in the way of other PRs that have a different merge policy?)
we should probably set the system to required two reviews
sometimes we're looking for feedback from someone in particular
Draft is fair enough if the author does not believe that the PR can currently be merged (pending more changes, someone particular to review it, something else).
We've had some understandable confusion on when PRs get merged, as we came up with some exceptions to the "2 TSC approvals" rule in TDC calls. But not everyone is at every TDC call, nor can everyone be expected to remember everything that came up. So we should put PRs into draft, even if they are otherwise ready for merging, if we want to wait for a specific approval.
Just filing this b/c I don't have time to try to update DEVELOPMENT.md but we should do that at some point.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: