Clarification of priority label semantics #339
Conversation
sventiffe
requested review from
aiuto,
floriographygoth,
jin and
philwo
as code owners
sventiffe
requested review from
meteorcloudy
and removed request for
jin and
philwo
maintaining/maintainers-guide.md
Outdated
| any imminent release. May never be fixed. | ||
| any imminent release. May never be fixed by the Bazel team. | ||
| * Issues marked as P3 are not actively managed by the Bazel team. | ||
| Community contributions are encouraged, the Bazel team will accept PRs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we want to mention the help-wanted label somewhere around here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be a good statement?
A bullet point under P3 like "In particular, we welcome contributions to issues with the label "help wanted"." maybe?
While "help wanted" is not restricted to P3 issues, it would be the place where I would mainly expect that label.
maintaining/maintainers-guide.md
Outdated
| any imminent release. May never be fixed. | ||
| any imminent release. May never be fixed by the Bazel team. | ||
| * Issues marked as P3 are not actively managed by the Bazel team. | ||
| Community contributions are encouraged, the Bazel team will accept PRs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a worry about the words "will accept PRs.", even with the "reach out" qualification in the next sentence. I want to avoid repeating our habit of lingering reviews of PRs that address an issue in the authors mind, but are not well thought out.
What about this concept:
Community contributions are welcome. Before sending a PR, please reach out in the issue first to discuss your solution and work with the Bazel team to find the best reviewer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated with the suggested wording
No description provided.