Hi Cleber, On 12/4/19 7:18 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:05:55PM +0200, Plamen Dimitrov wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am fairly new to the avocado community (about a year or so) and I am not >> sure so far I was clear on the reviewing and merging authorization that is >> employed in all avocado repositories. I was left with the apparently false >> impression that new members of the community can only comment on newer PR-s >> and nothing else and merging a PR would require two reviews from authorized >> members. However, recently I noticed that we can also review open pull >> requests which I didn't know before. Is this true or just wrongly enabled >> github switch? If so are there formal rules who can review/merge/comment >> anywhere to be found in the official avocado documentation or is it a >> standard >> workflow with the only rules that: > Hi Plamen, > > In fact the general policies used vary between the various Avocado > repositories. For instance, on Avocado-VT, the "two reviews" rule > apply, while in Avocado we don't have such a strict requirement on > the number of reviews.
I see, it makes sense now and definitely clears things up. >> 1) two reviews are needed for merge for everyone > This is general rules for Avocado: > > > https://avocado-framework.readthedocs.io/en/73.0/guides/contributor/chapters/how.html#code-review > > It may be that GitHub prevents non-contributors from submitting formal > "Approved" reviews. I myself consider a comment with a "Reviewed, > LGTM to me" just as good. I had a bit of experience today from this and it seems GitHub allows official reviews/approvals from contributors for sure. > For Avocado-VT I'm mentally aware of the "two reviews" rule, but I > can't find that in the docs. > >> 2) everyone can review new pull requests > With regards to reviews, anyone *should* be able to review PRs. I'd > consider the opposite to be a badly configured GitHub switch. I don't > think we have that explicitly stated anywhere. I have to say I took > that for granted. > > Most importantly IMO is: do you think there's room for improvements > here? If so, what/how? > If you are referring to the documentation state of this workflow, then I noticed that indeed the avocado situation on the matter has been well explained on the above link. Perhaps a single extra sentence explicitly encouraging reviews from contributors would make both points above clear. In the case of Avocado VT, I understand that differences in review process and overall contribution workflow differs mostly due to historical reasons. I am not sure if it is even possible to standardize these more across the avocado projects. Thanks a lot for asking this, Plamen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
