I think that a 5 day waiting period is too long, and indeed I don't think there should be any time-based review barrier. For contributions to main set.mm, I would propose that we have a simple system where at least 2 people sign off on each PR: the author and at least one maintainer/reviewer (not equal to the author). CI is quick so we can make it a requirement for merging.
I think we should have designated maintainers for parts of set.mm. Any changes to that section should be reviewed by at least one designated maintainer. There aren't too many daily active contributors so possibly we can just all be maintainers of everything to start, but some people have their own pet sections and we should make an attempt to write down everyone's area of expertise so that we know who to ping. For mathbox-only changes, I would stick to the 1 reviewer rule but most likely only a cursory examination is required. Mario On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:04 PM Thierry Arnoux <[email protected]> wrote: > I've created a "mathbox only" label in Github. > > It could be used to mark such PR's with only changes in one's own > mathbox and ease reviewing a bit. > > _ > Thierry > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Metamath" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/976c29ad-2812-0ee5-02ef-8dd36e1b471b%40gmx.net > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CAFXXJSs9TF5dWnurcnhRQdU%3DsmnrOp%2BNi8kgTyhCDTkj-iRRqQ%40mail.gmail.com.
