4d5eaea6dc
Overall, I'm just trying to make these bits of documentation reflect our process as it stands today. There are some specific changes I want to draw attention to though. Asking new contributors to pick a reviewer is a waste of time for two reasons: Only people with write access to the repository are allowed to pick reviewers, and new contributors have no idea who would be a good reviewer for their PR anyway. So I'm deleting all mention of that. We now auto-assign reviewers instead. By the time someone is opening a PR, asking them to open an issue just makes extra work for everyone. They've already picked an approach without discussing it; we might as well look at what they did. We may then have to ask them to take a different approach, but at that point, asking them to open an issue won't save them any effort. I removed mention of tests from the pull request template. There are many things we'd like to see in a PR, and we may have to ask for them during review if the contributor doesn't follow our development process documentation. But I think the only crucial information for starting a review is the two questions I'm leaving in the template: why do you want this, and where can I find more context? The code of conduct link still had the branch name as `master`, which is a hint at how long it's been since anyone reviewed it.
577 B
577 B