|
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 |
|
| #
7dbcf4c1 |
| 27-Jan-2026 |
Alex Crichton <[email protected]> |
Clarify merge etiquette in Wasmtime (#12408)
Document that we typically expect maintainers themselves to add their
own PRs to the merge queue after approval, but clarify that for
contributors this i
Clarify merge etiquette in Wasmtime (#12408)
Document that we typically expect maintainers themselves to add their
own PRs to the merge queue after approval, but clarify that for
contributors this is a responsibility of maintainers to add PRs to the
merge queue.
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: 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 |
|
| #
69fecf4e |
| 30-Jul-2025 |
Nick Fitzgerald <[email protected]> |
Add contributor docs about our RFC process (#11349)
We have some off-hand links to particular RFCs in our docs, but did not have any
general information about our usage of the RFC process. I've adde
Add contributor docs about our RFC process (#11349)
We have some off-hand links to particular RFCs in our docs, but did not have any
general information about our usage of the RFC process. I've added that
information in this commit.
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: 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 |
|
| #
bb2ae7cd |
| 29-Jan-2025 |
Oscar Spencer <[email protected]> |
chore: Add issue triage process to contributing docs (#10152)
|
|
Revision tags: v29.0.1, v29.0.0, v28.0.1 |
|
| #
e9ecab49 |
| 06-Jan-2025 |
Alex Crichton <[email protected]> |
Clarify rebasing/merging guidelines in docs (#9931)
Indicate that a rebase is required if there's a merge conflict or CI
issues for example. Inspired by discussion on #9897
|
|
Revision tags: 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 |
|
| #
986f9f79 |
| 25-Feb-2020 |
Alex Crichton <[email protected]> |
Merge the CONTRIBUTING.md files
|