cranelift

13234 Commits

49 Branches

140 Tags

128 MiB

Tree: 34a9ad9826

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jamey Sharp	4d5eaea6dc	Update PR template and dev process docs (#6158 ) Overall, I'm just trying to make these bits of documentation reflect our process as it stands today. There are some specific changes I want to draw attention to though. Asking new contributors to pick a reviewer is a waste of time for two reasons: Only people with write access to the repository are allowed to pick reviewers, and new contributors have no idea who would be a good reviewer for their PR anyway. So I'm deleting all mention of that. We now auto-assign reviewers instead. By the time someone is opening a PR, asking them to open an issue just makes extra work for everyone. They've already picked an approach without discussing it; we might as well look at what they did. We may then have to ask them to take a different approach, but at that point, asking them to open an issue won't save them any effort. I removed mention of tests from the pull request template. There are many things we'd like to see in a PR, and we may have to ask for them during review if the contributor doesn't follow our development process documentation. But I think the only crucial information for starting a review is the two questions I'm leaving in the template: why do you want this, and where can I find more context? The code of conduct link still had the branch name as `master`, which is a hint at how long it's been since anyone reviewed it.	2 years ago
Alex Crichton	986f9f79e1	Merge the CONTRIBUTING.md files	5 years ago

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Jamey Sharp

4d5eaea6dc

Update PR template and dev process docs (#6158 )

Overall, I'm just trying to make these bits of documentation reflect our
process as it stands today. There are some specific changes I want to
draw attention to though.

Asking new contributors to pick a reviewer is a waste of time for two
reasons: Only people with write access to the repository are allowed to
pick reviewers, and new contributors have no idea who would be a good
reviewer for their PR anyway. So I'm deleting all mention of that. We
now auto-assign reviewers instead.

By the time someone is opening a PR, asking them to open an issue just
makes extra work for everyone. They've already picked an approach
without discussing it; we might as well look at what they did. We may
then have to ask them to take a different approach, but at that point,
asking them to open an issue won't save them any effort.

I removed mention of tests from the pull request template. There are
many things we'd like to see in a PR, and we may have to ask for them
during review if the contributor doesn't follow our development process
documentation. But I think the only crucial information for starting a
review is the two questions I'm leaving in the template: why do you want
this, and where can I find more context?

The code of conduct link still had the branch name as `master`, which is
a hint at how long it's been since anyone reviewed it.

2 years ago

Alex Crichton

986f9f79e1

Merge the CONTRIBUTING.md files

5 years ago

2 Commits (34a9ad98264a351ae72928c1fb77d85c1c750d12)