Replies: 1 comment 4 replies
-
There's certainly an advantage of having the reviewer (whom is different to the author) responsible for merging… at work often the task then gets handed back to the author to "review" the merge to ensure everything got caught. While the team is very small, this can be a big bottleneck though. One person away (e.g. illness or vacation -- at Imbil when the satellite link went out, we had practically no Internet access other than very sketchy LTE), and suddenly everything deadlocks. So I wouldn't want to strictly enforce this in case for whatever reason we needed to push on with something. Certainly if more people come on board, we should re-visit this. We've got some good geographic diversity at the moment, so that helps a bit, but let's not put ourselves in a straightjacket too quickly. :-) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I feel like I'm using discussions like a chat system since this is so minor 😅 but I figure why not, people may be interested to read this at some point... anyway, I figured before this gets too far we should coordinate how we merge PRs. I'm used to a workflow where the assignee (or if not set, the PR author) is the one responsible for merging, but PRs from anyone other than a maintainer (if that ever comes up) would need to be approved by a maintainer first. @sjlongland did you want to do it differently? E.g. if I make a PR you need to be the one to merge it and vice versa, or either of us as maintainers can just merge any non-draft PR at our discretion? I'm not picky about what we pick, just wanted to make sure we're on the same page to avoid confusion.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions