On Wed, 15 May 2024 19:00:57 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Update the code review guidelines for JavaFX. >> >> The JavaFX >> [CONTRIBUTING](https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx/blob/8332313-contributing/CONTRIBUTING.md) >> guidelines includes guidance for creating, reviewing, and integrating >> changes to JavaFX, along with a pointer to a [Code Review >> Policies](https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/OpenJFX/Code+Reviews) Wiki page. >> >> This PR updates these guidelines to improve the quality of reviews, with a >> goal of improving JavaFX and decreasing the chance of introducing a serious >> regression or other critical bug. >> >> The source branch has three commits: >> 1. Converts the Code Review Policies Wiki page to a >> [README-code-reviews.md](https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx/blob/8332313-contributing/README-code-reviews.md) >> file in the repo and updates hyperlinks to the new location. >> 2. Update `README-code-reviews.md` with new guidelines >> 3. Update `CONTRIBUTING.md` to highlight important requirements (and minor >> changes to `README-code-reviews.md`) >> >> Commit 1 is content neutral, so it might be helpful for reviewers to look at >> the changes starting from the second commit. >> >> The updates are: >> >> * In the Overview section, add a list of items for Reviewers, PR authors, >> and sponsoring Committers to verify prior to integration >> * Create a "Guidelines for reviewing a PR" subsection of the Code review >> policies section >> * Create a "Before you integrate or sponsor a PR" subsection of the Code >> review policies section >> * Update the `CONTRIBUTING.md` page to highlight important requirements > > README-code-reviews.md line 48: > >> 46: All code reviews must be done via a pull request submitted against this >> GitHub repo, [openjdk/jfx](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx). A JBS bug ID >> must exist before the pull request will be reviewed. See >> [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md) for information on how to submit a pull >> request. >> 47: >> 48: All fixes must be reviewed by at least one reviewer with the "Reviewer" >> role (aka a "R"eviewer). We have a different code review threshold for >> different types of changes. If there is disagreement as to whether a fix is >> low-impact or high-impact, then it is considered high-impact. In other words >> we will always err on the side of quality by "rounding up" to the next >> higher category. The contributor can say whether they think something is >> low-impact or high-impact, but It is up to a Reviewer to confirm this. A >> Reviewer either adds a comment indicating that they think a single review is >> sufficient, or else issues the Skara `/reviewers 2` command requesting a >> second reviewer (a Reviewer can request more than 2 reviewers in some cases >> where a fix might be especially risky or cut across multiple functional >> areas). > > "but **It** is" -> it I think it worth noting that in skara syntax that isn't two people with the reviewer role. And tell people what to use if that is what they intend - eg if I have it right ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1455#discussion_r1602190743
