New status: RFC
for pull requests
#12708
Replies: 2 comments
-
FWIW "Ready" was originally conceived as "ready for review". And this pre-dates the existence of official GH reviews, BTW. I would actually purpose something different: start using "ready" as it was intended, and adopt a self-merge policy (with a formal review approval or lapsed statement of intent to merge) [1]. In that case a signifier for "ready to merge" is superfluous and unnecessary. [1] There is a WIP draft here: https://github.com/bokeh/bokeh/wiki/BEP-11:-Merge-Policy |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've checked BEP-1 (https://github.com/bokeh/bokeh/wiki/BEP-1:-Issues-and-PRs-management) which I should know but don't fully yet and it does indeed state that |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Currently there is no middle ground between
status: WIP
andstatus: ready
, and it seems to me that the general consensus is not to pay too much attention to WIP PRs , which is understandable as they can be in various states of not working or being unviable, and wait for them to be fully ready. However, this is counterproductive, because there is a stage in the life of a PR, when it's still work-in-progress (e.g. is missing sufficient test coverage), but it good enough for discussing API changes, etc. Thus I propose to fill in the gap withstatus: RFC
(Ready for Comments).Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions