On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 7:27 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2025, at 19:09, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > To be clear, what I was trying to say was not that all the RPC's changes > > should be in one PR -- though I think that's easiest for the RPC at this > > point -- but rather that as they iterate on a given set of changes they > > should be in a single PR. > > How do you picture those author responses to the PR going? Simply as > comments in the PR? Text changes done as commits in the branch that created > the PR? Or something else? > Comments to the PR that specify what the authors want clearly and/or Github suggestions that specify the exact changes. I don't think commits in the branch that created the PR are helpful and generally may not be permitted by the GitHub permissions model (depending on exactly how things are specified). I ask because I suck at commenting in PRs for documents, and when I do so, > I get wildly different advice from the authors about the proper way to > comment in a PR. It would be good if the RPC could say to authors ahead of > time how the authors should interact with the PR (just as they are told how > to respond to AUTH48 email). > Well, hopefully this situation is clearer because the space of reasonable comments is rather smaller, as the authors should only be commenting on text the RPC has changed, and so mostly you should either be saying "Please revert this change" or "Here is yet another alternate piece of text". Just to be clear, if the authors want to make unsolicited changes beyond what the RPC changed, they should be generating their own PRs, not making those changes to the RPC's PR. -Ekr > > --Paul Hoffman >
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
