- Mention trivial edits
- It's OK if an author leaves in an existing grammar or spelling error
that is not related to the issue they are fixing / the change they are
making.
Co-authored-by: Shannon Kularathna <ax3shannonkularathna@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Abigail McCarthy <mabigail@vmware.com>
This PR proposes an update to the PR review guidelines. The proposed change is about the use of the "Request changes" or the "Approve" option when finishing a PR review. Neither of these two options should be encouraged. We may want to encourage reviewers to always use "Comment", because:
- "Request changes" status is sticky and unnecessary. Placing a "/hold" should be okay because we do respect opinions from all reviewers/approvers.
The "Request changes" status can only be discarded by people with privileges.
We see quite a few cases where the reviewer left a "Request changes" mark and forgot to revisit a PR.
Such a sticky status is not friendly to contributors or peer reviewers.
- The "Approve" option is confusing. It is not considered by the prow as an approval IIUC. The PR has to be approved again even if it has been "approved" this way.
Tim Bannister
dkarczmarski
Rey Lejano
Michael
Rolfe Dlugy-Hegwer
Sean Wei
Kubernetes Prow Robot
Qiming Teng
Emin ALEMDAR
chrismetz09
Kensei Nakada
Bob Killen
Qiming Teng
Karen Bradshaw
Celeste Horgan