Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

What about some sort of script that detects MR older than x time without a reviewer, and asks a group of people to take a look. On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 19:36, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers > mailing list. This is distinct from

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

I wonder if it would alleviate the concerns to have a ghc-maintainers mailing list. This is distinct from ghc-devs, in that the maintainers have GHC as their day job. It would explicitly invite email from folks struggling to figure out how to contribute. I don't mean to create more mail for Ben

RE: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs writes: > | If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers > | for a new contributors patch > | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new > | contributors. > > Yes, that would be an unfortunate -- and indeed wrong --

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

Matthew Pickering writes: > If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers > for a new contributors patch then it doesn't seem to me that a project > wants or values new contributors. > For what it's worth, I am happy to try to find reviewers for a newcomer's patch.

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

> Simon > > | -Original Message- > | From: Matthew Pickering > | Sent: 08 November 2019 10:25 > | To: Simon Peyton Jones > | Cc: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org > | Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow > | > | If the maintainers

RE: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

| Cc: Ben Gamari ; ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow | | If the maintainers are not willing to either review or find reviewers | for a new contributors patch | then it doesn't seem to me that a project wants or values new | contributors

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

uld articulate some of this thinking. > > Simon > > | -Original Message- > | From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Matthew > | Pickering > | Sent: 09 October 2019 11:18 > | To: Ben Gamari > | Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org > | Subject: Re: Proposed changes to

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow | | Sounds good in principal but I object to | | > Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify | reviewers for their merge requests. | | Asking for reviews is one of the most frust

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

+1 On 9.10.2019 13.18, Matthew Pickering wrote: Sounds good in principal but I object to Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify reviewers for their merge requests. Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of contributing patches, even if you

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

Sounds good in principal but I object to > Make it clear that it is the contributor's responsibility to identify > reviewers for their merge requests. Asking for reviews is one of the most frustrating parts of contributing patches, even if you know who to ask! So I think the maintainer's

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

+1 from me. > On Oct 8, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Shayne Fletcher via ghc-devs > wrote: > > All sounds very sensible to me. > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:17 PM Ben Gamari > wrote: > tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge >request

Re: Proposed changes to merge request workflow

All sounds very sensible to me. On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:17 PM Ben Gamari wrote: > tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge >request workflow. > > > Hello everyone, > > Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our > merge request

Proposed changes to merge request workflow

tl;dr. I would like feedback on a few proposed changes [1] to our merge request workflow. Hello everyone, Over the past six months I have been monitoring the operation of our merge request workflow, which arose rather organically in the wake of the initial move to GitLab. While it works