Skip to content

doc: harden policy around objections #34639

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
mmarchini wants to merge 5 commits into from
+16 −8
Closed

doc: harden policy around objections #34639

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1331fc1
doc: harden policy around objections
mmarchini Aug 5, 2020
a6e01ee
fixup! doc: harden policy around objections
mmarchini Aug 6, 2020
fceaff2
fixup! doc: harden policy around objections
mmarchini Aug 6, 2020
9d09194
fixup! doc: harden policy around objections
mmarchini Aug 6, 2020
01d8caa
fixup! doc: harden policy around objections
mmarchini Aug 9, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
fixup! doc: harden policy around objections 
Co-authored-by: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com>
  • Loading branch information
@mmarchini @richardlau
mmarchini and richardlau authored Aug 6, 2020
commit fceaff20853f8c4a37db53d5d66969a8852799e3
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion doc/guides/collaborator-guide.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ except the [wait time](#waiting-for-approvals), please add the
If a collaborator believes a pull request should not land as is, **the "Request
Changes" GitHub feature must be used to make the objection explicit**. An
implicit objection not using the "Request Changes" feature is not considered a
Comment thread
mmarchini marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
blocker for a pull requests. Pull requests with an explicit objection should
blocker for a pull request. Pull requests with an explicit objection should
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@guybedford guybedford Aug 6, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Both of these two sentences seem to be restatements of the first statement. I appreciate making sure it is clear, but perhaps just a single restatement would be fine between these?

To add another variation to the mix, another restatement could be a comprehensive statement of the positive criteria for landing a PR.

A PR may land only when both the wait time has passed and there are no explicit objections as marked through the GitHub "request changes" feature.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mmarchini mmarchini Aug 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll try to rephrase it so it's less repetitive.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mmarchini mmarchini Aug 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, forgot to address these before landing. Sent another PR that should reduce repetitiveness: #34702

not land until all objections are satisfied. Collaborators should not block a
pull request without providing a reason. **Providing a set of actionable steps
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@guybedford guybedford Aug 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again it might be nice to state this in the positive:

Any PR objection must include a clear reason for that objection as well as responsiveness to further discussion towards consensus. If reaching consensus is not possible...

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mmarchini mmarchini Aug 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The suggestion drops the recommendation to provide actionable steps, but I see your point. Let me try to rephrase this too.

alongside the objection is recommended, and the objector must be willing to
Expand Down