doc: add collaborator guide #273
Conversation
llnode has been unofficially following the Node.js Collaborator Guide wrt Approving and Landing PRs policy. On the downside, these policies were written for a large project with 100+ collaborators and dozens of active collaborators daily. llnode has only a few collaborators, and some policies slow the project quite a bit. This commit adds COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md with a link to Node.js Collaborator Guide, so we'll start to follow these guidelines officially. It also adds one exception to ensure the project can move forward with a limited number of collaborators. Fixes: nodejs#242
|
cc @nodejs/diagnostics @nodejs/post-mortem @nodejs/llnode |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #273 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 79.96% 81.23% +1.26%
==========================================
Files 34 34
Lines 4292 4369 +77
==========================================
+ Hits 3432 3549 +117
+ Misses 860 820 -40
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| with the following exception: | ||
|
|
||
| llnode Collaborators are allowed to approve their own Pull Requests if it has | ||
| been opened for at least 7 days and there was no reviews from other |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really like this idea. However, if this does land, please add text about requiring a passing CI run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is covered by the Node.js Collaborators Guide, but I can make it explicit here too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe just say something to the effect of "All other landing criteria still have to be met even if its self-approved." rather than repeating the criteria.
Is it really that hard to get approval on PRs here? llnode is pretty important now that its almost our default http parser, I'd hope it gets more attention than that. Could the exception be removed, and the issue of lack of active collabs be brought up to the TSC level, or equivalent?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe just say something to the effect of "All other landing criteria still have to be met even if its self-approved." rather than repeating the criteria.
I like that. I'll make the change.
Is it really that hard to get approval on PRs here?
Medium and large changes tend to take a month or more to get reviewed.
llnode is pretty important now that its almost our default http parser, I'd hope it gets more attention than that.
I think you're referring to https://github.com/nodejs/llhttp. llnode is unrelated to HTTP parsing.
|
I just did a walkthrough all PRs we landed since the last Diagnostics Summit, and most of them were reviewed within a week or so. Based on that I think the exception is unnecessary and I'd rather keep the review policy we've been using so far. |
|
Superseded by #275. |
llnode has been unofficially following the Node.js Collaborator Guide
wrt Approving and Landing PRs policy. On the downside, these policies
were written for a large project with 100+ collaborators and dozens of
active collaborators daily. llnode has only a few collaborators, and
some policies slow the project quite a bit.
This commit adds COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md with a link to Node.js
Collaborator Guide, so we'll start to follow these guidelines
officially. It also adds one exception to ensure the project can move
forward with a limited number of collaborators.
Fixes: #242