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.
4d5eaea6dc
