On 30.10.19 10:14, Richard Levitte wrote:
This is a good idea, and also a detectable event for a bot to listen to.
Sounds like an excellent idea: If approvals and dismissals of approvals
(resp. re-review requests) are all bot events, then the bot should be able
to handle most state changes a
I think its a good idea.
It would prevent issues like
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9501
Patrick
On 29/10/2019 12:34, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
>
> On 29/10/2019 12:24, Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>>
>> It might be useful to add more reasons for why the issue is resolved.
>> OTOH we should watch out that we don't create too many labels.
>>
>> "resolved: fixed"
>> "resolved: answered"
>
This is a good idea, and also a detectable event for a bot to listen to.
Cheers
Richard
"Dr. Matthias St. Pierre" skrev: (30 oktober
2019 09:30:11 CET)
>> Independently of the new 'approval: *' state labelling I was
>wondering whether it wouldn't
>> be a good idea to adopt the habit of explici
> Independently of the new 'approval: *' state labelling I was wondering
> whether it wouldn't
> be a good idea to adopt the habit of explicitly requesting a re-review from
> the other reviewers
> after significant changes, using the mechanism provided by GitHub (i.e. the
> button with the two
Independently of the new 'approval: *' state labelling I was wondering whether
it wouldn't
be a good idea to adopt the habit of explicitly requesting a re-review from the
other reviewers
after significant changes, using the mechanism provided by GitHub (i.e. the
button with the two
circling arro
