I agree with Ash.
I think leaving threads open is a feature not a problem.
I used it with referencing todos in new issues and I think it's easier when
the thread is kept open.
Personally if I have a review that is important to me to follow up on then
I publish it as request changes not as comment. That way if someone wants
to override my review he must dismiss it with a note explaining why.
That is much more powerful.
I am -0 for keeping it.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 1:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> To be clearer about the reason I don't want this
>
> Often times someone will leave a comment, and I will reply along the lines
> of "yes, fixed in fixup commit x" and want them to see it if they look/come
> back, but I don't think it's worth blocking merge on waiting for them to
> approve/resolve/re-review.
>
> But if I resolve the thread it then it makes it invisible/requires much
> more active effort on their part to see it.
>
> Similarly, when reviewing I find I have to expand all the resolved
> discussions to see what has already been said otherwise I end up asking the
> same questions ("why this way?" or "what about case Y?")
>
> If GH let discussions be resolved without also collapsing them I'd be +1,
> but mixing the two mens I prefer _not_ resolving discussions.
>
> -a
>
> On 31 January 2024 11:00:11 GMT, Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> >I'm a -1 on keeping this as I don't see it gives us any real benefit
> other than a rubber-stamp. Let's treat people as intelligent grown ups
> instead of children who need strict rules.
> >
> >On 31 January 2024 09:37:50 GMT, Pankaj Koti
> ><pankaj.k...@astronomer.io.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >>+1 to keep this
> >>
> >>@Bolke de Bruin: I am just thinking more on your point and wondering
> >>that if someone has the intent to hide the conversation, they can anyway
> >>mark it as resolved irrespective of this configuration, no?
>
