Heads needs to change co-maintaining/reviewing/merging policies
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Makefile
- Stars
- 1.6k
- Forks
- 211
- Avg merge
- 4d 21h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 6
Description
As of now, there is 4 reviewers per github policies
- @osresearch (founder of project, not active)
- @JonathonHall-Purism (purism)
- @nestire (nitrokey)
- @tlaurion (was Insurgo, not selling hardware anymore); project is currently under funded. I'm basically a volonteer myself)
Recently, the most active contributors are:
- @Tonux599
- @gaspar-ilom
I would suggest to
1- Change github merging policies to have 2 reviewers to unlock merging possibility (so no "king" merger)
2- Add @Tonux599 @gaspar-ilom to reviewers with merge rights (to review what are the rights needed)
3- Review proposed candidates for co-maintainership (Heads is not a full-time paid job for @tlaurion for a while now)
4- Review alternative propositions by community
Contributor guide
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
Review the repository's GitHub reviewer and merging settings, then read the issue discussion and the proposed alternatives. Done means the project has a decided reviewer threshold, appropriate merge rights for active contributors, and a documented process for co-maintainership.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- github
- Domain
- developer-experience
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100