Clarify details around review approvals before merging #199
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Forgot to tag people for comments: @jgraham, @gsnedders, @foolip, @jcscottiii, @web-platform-tests/admins. |
past
commented
Jun 4, 2024
foolip
reviewed
Jun 4, 2024
jcscottiii
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2024
|
@jgraham did you have any further comments here or should I merge this? |
jgraham
reviewed
Oct 1, 2024
Co-authored-by: jgraham <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: jgraham <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This captures my understanding of the meeting consensus after today's discussion. I didn't try to cover everything that was discussed, just tried to document the policy updates that would avoid a situation like #182 in the future.
We could make more updates, e.g. around what happens if the infra meeting discussion doesn't result in PR comments, what should be the relevant timeout. Another question we might want to tackle is documenting the policy for reverting (#187), but I thought I would start with what I didn't hear a clear objection on.
I'll bring this up in the next WPT infra meeting, too.