Define and document a process for reviewing pull requests
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 1.1k
- Forks
- 508
- Avg merge
- 1h 30m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
Let's create a process for reviewing pull requests that has the following properties:
- Is publicly available on the CDM website
- Provides a timeline for the person creating the PR so they know approximately how long it will take to get a review.
- Assigns roles and responsibilities (i.e. who is responsible for the review by when)
- Results in 1) request for changes 2) closure without merging with detailed reasoning 3) merge
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the CDM website and the existing pull request workflow. Define a publicly available process that states review timelines, assigns responsibilities and deadlines, and documents the three possible outcomes: requested changes, closure with reasoning, or merge.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100