Closing / Fixing policy

[therebelrobot]

We need a policy for closing/fixing PRs that have merge conflicts. see #24-comment-70226567. @snostorm suggested we close after some sort of X day policy. First maybe tag the author to try and rebase/conflict resolve before closing?

[therebelrobot]

@snostorm et al.: should we delete branches after merge, or leave that to the PR submitter?

[snostorm]

Meh. I sometimes do occasional cleanup of stale branches off repos while drinking my morning coffee. Zero preference on the timing. (Part of me likes the idea of a few hour buffer for some odd reason.)

[therebelrobot]

I also think we should have a 2 or more 👍 from WG on a PR before merging. or 2 or more 👎 before closing without merge.

[mikeal]

2 seems reasonable.

[therebelrobot]

Also, what about someone who wants to "dibs" a merge for one reason or another? Should we allow for that, and check who the assignee is before merging, or should we do first-come-first-serve?

[therebelrobot]

Bump

[Fishrock123]

I also think we should have a 2 or more 👍 from WG on a PR before merging.

Even core only requires a single reviewer.

[mikeal]

Core only requires a single reviewer but that assumes they are the expert in that particular area and it specifies that they let the PR sit for more than a day to give people a chance to weigh in. We're merging much faster so it might be worth it to change the policy to require 2 or more +1 but remove the requirement on letting PR's sit for so long.

[therebelrobot]

+1 @mikeal

[mikeal]

Someone should write up whatever we agree to and stick it in the CONTRIBUTING file ;)

[bnb]

It seems the x day policy is still undefined. (First WG meeting minutes, search #76, third WG meeting minutes, search #76.) Are we going to leave this undefined for now, add it to the next WG-meeting agenda, or pick a time frame? @indexzero suggested 72 hours here.

[therebelrobot]

I say we pick a timeframe and stick with it. +1 to 72 hours with no activity.

[bnb]

Would this apply in all PRs that is commented on with a question or request, or just ones that have merge conflicts?

[therebelrobot]

@bnb, I would say those with merge conflicts or have a single downvote. For regular PRs, as @mikeal said above, we should remove the need for it to sit for so long.

[bnb]

Sent in PR #232.

[fhemberger]

Further discussion taking place in #232, I will close this issue for now.