On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:20 AM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre <
matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote:
> > ... I think we should change that. This does not mean that a reviewer
> who made a change request
> > two months ago and lost interest is forced to re-review, only that such
> stale reviews must be
> ... I think we should change that. This does not mean that a reviewer who
> made a change request
> two months ago and lost interest is forced to re-review, only that such stale
> reviews must be dismissed
> explicitly, if the reviewer does not respond to a re-review request within a
>
> Your suggestion seems workable too. PRs are merged with outstanding change
> requests indicated
> — a reviewer comments, the comments are addressed then a different reviewer
> approves without
> the original review being removed. The labels are a bit more in your face.
> A hybrid “hold:
Matthias,
Your suggestion seems workable too. PRs are merged with outstanding change
requests indicated — a reviewer comments, the comments are addressed then a
different reviewer approves without the original review being removed. The
labels are a bit more in your face. A hybrid “hold:
> Just wondering if we should have two new labels: “hold: tests needed” and
> “hold: documentation needed” labels?
> There are a number of PRs that come through where one or both of these are
> missing missing.
The two use cases you mention are actually better handled by a change request
(via
Just wondering if we should have two new labels: “hold: tests needed” and
“hold: documentation needed” labels?
There are a number of PRs that come through where one or both of these are
missing (this post posed by @slontis’s comment in 12826
