Alex Waters [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-09-20 🗒️ Summary of this message: Refinement ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-09-20
🗒️ Summary of this message: Refinement needed to avoid abruptly closing pull requests without warning. Suggest automated warning emails and detailed rebase walkthroughs to avoid outdated issues.
📝 Original message:> We need to avoid a user/contributor experience of: "my pull request
> was abruptly closed with no warning"
I agree, I definitely want to go about this in a non-jerk way. I would
be pissed if I spent hours coding something, and it was put on the
back burner and eventually closed (especially without notice). The
wording and process could use refinement.
> Contributors might not track the state of the tree on a day-to-day
> basis. Thus, following the example of bugzilla.redhat.com and many
> other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an
> automated warning email -- usually by adding a comment to the bug
> report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated
> reports) exists, and how to avoid automated report closure.
I can definitely do this, and give a wordy notice before I start the
timer. I will write up a message that links to a rebase walkthrough
(any suggestions? I think Gavin has one somewhere...), I would like it
to be more detailed than GitHub's walk-through.
My main reason for pushing this is that it will help clear out some of
the older pulls/issues that exist right now. I'm hoping that in the
future, the QA process will be good enough that pulls/issues won't
fall behind from lack of testing - and the timers will be used very
sparingly. It should only be in place to sort out the pulls/issues
that the majority doesn't want included in the client.
🗒️ Summary of this message: Refinement needed to avoid abruptly closing pull requests without warning. Suggest automated warning emails and detailed rebase walkthroughs to avoid outdated issues.
📝 Original message:> We need to avoid a user/contributor experience of: "my pull request
> was abruptly closed with no warning"
I agree, I definitely want to go about this in a non-jerk way. I would
be pissed if I spent hours coding something, and it was put on the
back burner and eventually closed (especially without notice). The
wording and process could use refinement.
> Contributors might not track the state of the tree on a day-to-day
> basis. Thus, following the example of bugzilla.redhat.com and many
> other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an
> automated warning email -- usually by adding a comment to the bug
> report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated
> reports) exists, and how to avoid automated report closure.
I can definitely do this, and give a wordy notice before I start the
timer. I will write up a message that links to a rebase walkthrough
(any suggestions? I think Gavin has one somewhere...), I would like it
to be more detailed than GitHub's walk-through.
My main reason for pushing this is that it will help clear out some of
the older pulls/issues that exist right now. I'm hoping that in the
future, the QA process will be good enough that pulls/issues won't
fall behind from lack of testing - and the timers will be used very
sparingly. It should only be in place to sort out the pulls/issues
that the majority doesn't want included in the client.