This isn’t a vote so I am not going to. If I had to vote I wouldn’t vote for a policy that requires RTC always. However, I would vote for a policy that requires RTC when specified criteria are met.
Ralph > On Sep 17, 2024, at 10:28 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > First, the obvious. I haven’t committed much in a while. The last several I > did I used PRs primarily because it makes it easier for people to review the > changes but I didn’t necessarily wait for a review. For really simple stuff > I've never use a PR. However, with the switch from Jira to GitHub issues it > might make more sense to use a PR since you have to have something to track > the problem. But if there is already an issue then I would probably just use > that. Again, depending on what is being done. > > I wouldn’t classify any of the work I’ve seen you doing recently as trivial > or minor, so you only doing PRs makes sense. > > Ralph > >> On Sep 17, 2024, at 7:52 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ralph, >> >> On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 15:47, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Why? i.e. - what currently isn’t working? >> >> I merely wish to formalize what is already happening and set up a >> branch protection rule to enforce it. >> >> Note that I have never seen a PR in Log4Net being merged without a review. >> >> On the other hand you can probably find a couple of my recent PRs that >> don't have a formal review. Sure, I must have certainly consulted with >> someone on Slack before I merged them, but there is no sign of it. >> Let's make it formal, so users also see it. >> >> Piotr >
