Mirrors/bevy
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy synced 2024-11-22 04:33:37 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Add note on partial reviews (#13163)

Browse source 
# Objective

Reviews with caveats are incredibly useful to maintainers when
evaluating PRs.

However, it's not generally clear to reviewers that conditional
approvals or partial approvals are helpful and welcome.

## Solution

Add clarifying documentation to CONTRIBUTING.md.

---------

Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecil@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Alice Cecile 2024-05-01 15:39:05 -04:00 committed by GitHub
parent b3ed0dd002
commit c92eee848a
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
1 changed files with 10 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
CONTRIBUTING.md
View file

@ -285,7 +285,16 @@ Larger changes deserve a comment in the main thread, or a pull request to the or
When in doubt about a matter of architectural philosophy, refer back to [*What we're trying to build*](#what-were-trying-to-build) for guidance.
Once you're happy with the work and feel you're reasonably qualified to assess quality in this particular area, leave your `Approved` review on the PR.
If you're new to GitHub, check out the [Pull Request Review documentation](https://docs.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/about-pull-request-reviews). Anyone can leave reviews ... no special permissions are required!
If you're new to GitHub, check out the [Pull Request Review documentation](https://docs.github.com/en/github/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/about-pull-request-reviews).
**Anyone** can and should leave reviews ... no special permissions are required!
It's okay to leave an approval even if you aren't 100% confident on all areas of the PR: just be sure to note your limitations.
When maintainers are evaluating the PR to be merged, they'll make sure that there's good coverage on all of the critical areas.
If you can only check that the math is correct, and another reviewer can check everything *but* the math, we're in good shape!
Similarly, if there are areas that would be *good* to fix but aren't severe, please consider leaving an approval.
The author can address them immediately, or spin it out into follow-up issues or PRs.
Large PRs are much more draining for both reviewers and authors, so try to push for a smaller scope with clearly tracked follow-ups.
There are three main places you can check for things to review: