General topics | MT – Looking to get a new work laptop. What is process? Centralize docs? Could put Interchange user guide in Toolkit, makes for more cohesive explanation. Minimum requirements (can always request review and owner will provide it): Small changes (fix typo, wording change of 10 lines or less) → Feel free to merge directly once status is green Medium changes (meanings change but unambiguous improvement) → Give 3 working days after owner is tagged for review, if time window passes with no review or no “I need more time” message, then merge. Large changes (functionality or significant code change) → Requires review.
|
PR reviews/other unblockers | MT – It’s often ambiguous to determine when I need review/what level of access I have. JW – Would a system of “access levels” to each repo help? Kinda like the requirements above, specified for each repo? MT – That’s a good idea in principle, but it may not even be granular enough for existing situations. JW – Saying “don’t worry about it, just merge your own PRs” is shifting the burden from the maintainer, where the other situation is “wow, this was bad, I’m reverting this merge” MT – The ideal number of reverted PRs is 0. But our target number is nonzero, because otherwise we’re being too cautious. JW – About 1-5% of PRs should be reverted if we’re going at the right speed. JW – I think a revert should be expected to come with reopening the PR and filling out a review with “request changes”. MT – Explaining why a revert happened should be required, at least. I’m not sure this should be encoded in policy. MT – Lots of stuff in the culture works well, but one of our overwhelming problems is maintainer neglect. JW – Figuring out a way to raise things as being urgent without making an undue burden of notification is hard. I kinda had a system for this in our check ins but needing a one-week turnaround isn’t conducive to getting work done. JW – For the next few weeks, I’ll start including a new section in reviews for PRs from people who could have direct merge access. This section will be “did this need review, and how would you know?” JW – Better prioritization might come from: Slack “red phone” channel for “hey maintainer, review this” Good idea, not sure it’s the right fit for now DMs can serve this purpose, no need to raise the stakes by making them public
More frequent meetings, purposed solely around PR clearance
|