This is something I already try to apply on my own PRs, never merge before explicitly solving all conversations.
Also for a reviewer, I feel like this gives more confidence to the fact that the PR is ready, and indeed we are less subject to missing a discussion or something going on making it 'not ok' to merge. Going over the entire thread before merging a PR to double check that everything is actually addressed can be time consuming. That is especially true if things are not marked as resolved. I agree that this is something that adds up some work, but I think it is worth the experiment and see what happens. We can easily revert if we are not happy with the way it goes. The workload will most likely be on the contributors' side, that will have to actually address and solve all the conversations. Le mar. 19 déc. 2023 à 16:44, Vincent Beck <[email protected]> a écrit : > I am wondering too if this is not something that gives more work to > maintainer without real benefits. A maintainer can still mark all > conversations as resolved and merge the PR if he wants. Though, I > understand there is the intention here as oppose as today where a > maintainer can just miss some comments. I am quite doubtful but I am in to > try it out and see how it goes. > > On 2023/12/19 14:55:13 Bolke de Bruin wrote: > > I'm less enthusiastic. What problem are we solving with this? If > something has not been addressed it can be done in a follow up or of if it > was just part of the conversation it won't have impact on the code. In > addition, the ones that need to deal with it are the ones merging and those > are not necessarily the same as the ones contributing. > > > > So for the friction that it creates with both the committer and the > contributer what is the benefit? > > > > B. > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 19 Dec 2023, at 15:45, Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 for trying and observing how it works. My concern is that adding > an additional obstacle might lead to more unfinished PRs. It might be > helpful to give the contributor some guidance on when we can resolve the > comments. > > > > > > Best, > > > Wei > > > > > >> On Dec 19, 2023, at 9:28 PM, Andrey Anshin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> We could try and if found it slows down for some reason we always > might > > >> revert it back. > > >> > > >> Just one suggestion, sometimes discussion contains some useful > information, > > >> e.g. "What the reason of finally decision", "Useful information why it > > >> should works by suggested way, or should not work", which might be > useful > > >> for someone who investigate why this changes was made, so in this > case I > > >> would suggest to create link in the main thread of PR with useful > > >> discussions. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 17:16, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hey everyone, > > >>> > > >>> TL;DR; I have a small proposal/discussion proposal to modify a bit > the > > >>> branch protection rules for Airflow. Why don't we add a protection > > >>> rule in our PRs that requires all the comments in the PRs to be > > >>> "marked as resolved" before merging the PR ? > > >>> > > >>> I have been following myself - for quite some time - an approach > that > > >>> whenever there are comments/suggestions/doubts in my PRs I do not > > >>> merge the PR until I **think** all of those have been addressed > > >>> (somehow). > > >>> > > >>> The resolution might not be what the person commenting wants > directly, > > >>> it might be "I hear your comment, and there are good reasons to do > > >>> otherwise" or simply saying - "I know it could be done this way but I > > >>> think otherwise" etc. etc. But sometimes I miss that there is a > > >>> comment that I have not reacted to, I skipped it unconsciously etc. > > >>> > > >>> I think having "some" kind of reaction to comments and deliberate "I > > >>> believe the conversation is resolved" is a very good thing and having > > >>> the author making a deliberate effort to "mark the conversation as > > >>> resolved" is a sign it's been read, though about and consciously > > >>> reacted to. > > >>> > > >>> I've learned recently that you can add protection rule that will > > >>> require all conversations on PR to be resolved before merging it, I > > >>> even went to a great length to create (and get merged) a PR to ASF > > >>> infra to enable it via .asf.yml feature > > >>> (https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-p6/pull/1740) - so we can > > >>> enable it now by a simple PR to our .asf.yaml enabling it. > > >>> > > >>> I'd love to try it - but of course it will have to change a bit the > > >>> workflow of everyone, where the author (or reviewer, or maintainer) > > >>> will have to mark all conversations as resolved deliberately before > > >>> merging PR. > > >>> > > >>> I'd love to enable it - at least to try and see how it can work - but > > >>> I understand it might add a bit of burden for everyone, however, I > > >>> think it might be worth it. > > >>> > > >>> WDYT? > > >>> > > >>> J. > > >>> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
