I like that we are being clear with our checklist, but we risk getting so long it is not read or understood. So any change I would like to be shorter:
For reference: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md Consider changing: *Reviewing is a process done by project maintainers, mostly on a volunteer basis. We try to keep the overhead as small as possible and appreciate if you help us to do so by completing the following items. Feel free to ask in a comment if you have troubles with any of them.* Consider changing: *Thanks for contributing to GeoServer. To respect your time we have a checklist to keep review/feedback/approval as efficient as possible. Project maintainers have limited (mostly volunteer) time and you are asked to revise your PR promptly based on feedback provided.* * We set PR review/feedback/approval to be efficient (low overhead) as everyone is doing most on a volunteer basis.* On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 4:20 AM Andrea Aime <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > I'm noticing more and more PRs that are being provided in an incomplete > state, > or that are not receiving any action past review. > > It seems these contributors are hoping that someone will complete the work > on their behalf... in practice, I don't see that happening all that often, > if anytime at all. > > What would you think about warning contributors about it in the PR > template? There is already wording about PR reviewers having little time to > do the review itself, which should be clear enough, but maybe we need to be > more explicit? > > Suggestions/opinions? > > Cheers > Andrea > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > -- -- Jody Garnett
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
