|
Revision tags: dev, v36.0.9, v44.0.1, v43.0.2, v36.0.8, v24.0.8, v44.0.0, v43.0.1, v42.0.2, v36.0.7, v24.0.7, v43.0.0, v42.0.1, v41.0.4, v42.0.0, v40.0.4, v36.0.6, v24.0.6, v41.0.3, v41.0.2, v41.0.1, v36.0.5, v40.0.3, v41.0.0, v36.0.4, v39.0.2, v40.0.2, v40.0.1, v40.0.0, v39.0.1, v39.0.0, v38.0.4, v37.0.3, v36.0.3, v24.0.5, v38.0.3, v38.0.2, v38.0.1, v37.0.2, v37.0.1, v37.0.0, v36.0.2, v36.0.1, v36.0.0, v35.0.0, v24.0.4, v33.0.2, v34.0.2, v34.0.1, v33.0.1, v24.0.3, v32.0.1, v34.0.0, v33.0.0, v32.0.0, v31.0.0, v30.0.2, v30.0.1, v30.0.0, v29.0.1, v29.0.0, v28.0.1, v28.0.0, v27.0.0, v26.0.1, v25.0.3, v24.0.2, v26.0.0, v21.0.2, v22.0.1, v23.0.3, v25.0.2, v24.0.1, v25.0.1, v25.0.0, v24.0.0, v23.0.2, v23.0.1, v23.0.0, v22.0.0, v21.0.1, v21.0.0, v20.0.2, v20.0.1, v20.0.0, v17.0.3, v19.0.2, v18.0.4, v19.0.1, v19.0.0, v18.0.3, v18.0.2, v17.0.2, v18.0.1, v18.0.0, v17.0.1, v17.0.0, v16.0.0, v15.0.1, v15.0.0, v14.0.4, v14.0.3, v14.0.2, v13.0.1, v14.0.1, v14.0.0, minimum-viable-wasi-proxy-serve, v13.0.0, v12.0.2, v11.0.2, v10.0.2, v12.0.1, v12.0.0, v11.0.1, v11.0.0, v10.0.1, v10.0.0, v9.0.4, v9.0.3, v9.0.2, v9.0.1, v9.0.0, v6.0.2, v7.0.1, v8.0.1, v8.0.0 |
|
| #
4d5eaea6 |
| 05-Apr-2023 |
Jamey Sharp <[email protected]> |
Update PR template and dev process docs (#6158)
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 at
Update PR template and dev process docs (#6158)
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.
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: v7.0.0, v6.0.1, v5.0.1, v4.0.1, v6.0.0, v5.0.0, v4.0.0, v3.0.1, v3.0.0, v1.0.2, v2.0.2, v2.0.1, v2.0.0, v1.0.1, v1.0.0, v0.40.1, v0.40.0, v0.39.1, v0.38.3, v0.38.2, v0.39.0, v0.38.1, v0.38.0, v0.37.0, v0.36.0, v0.35.3, v0.34.2, v0.35.2, v0.35.1, v0.35.0, v0.33.1, v0.34.1, v0.34.0, v0.33.0, v0.32.1, v0.32.0, v0.31.0, v0.30.0, v0.29.0, v0.28.0, v0.26.1, v0.27.0, v0.26.0, v0.25.0, v0.24.0, v0.23.0, v0.22.1, cranelift-v0.69.0, v0.22.0, v0.21.0, v0.20.0, v0.19.0, v0.18.0, v0.17.0, v0.16.0, v0.15.0, cranelift-v0.62.0, cranelift-v0.61.0, cranelift-v0.60.0, v0.12.0 |
|
| #
87757965 |
| 25-Feb-2020 |
Alex Crichton <[email protected]> |
Merge pull request/issue templates
|