I just merged the PR and went with "I have made the requested changes; please review again". Figured this makes people aware that they are to have addressed the changes before requesting a review and has them saying "please". :) Plus there's no way anyone will accidentally type that in conversation on a pull request.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > On 10/08/2017 09:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're > not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So > > using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please > re-review" or "please review again" that won't come > > up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be > unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has > > not seeming quite so forced. > > You're addressing the bot to notify the reviewers. It's like asking one's > secretary to schedule an appointment with > one's peers. > > -- > ~Ethan~ > _______________________________________________ > core-workflow mailing list > core-workflow@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow > This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: > https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
