Who should review the Pull Requests?
holingpoon opened this issue · comments
I was having a conversation with @katesweeney on who needs to be reviewers of nypl-core, and learned that I should include @saverkamp as a reviewer for pull requests.
I'm thinking, rather than asking around every time who should be included as reviewers, a Markdown file telling me maintainers/point-of-contacts I should include within each code repository, would work wonders. I have learned recently that Github gives special meaning to CONTRIBUTING.md at code repository's root level, and it is also a standard practice used at companies such as Pantheon and CircleCI.
While we can figure out which parts of the standards we can and should adopt, some instructions on how to submit a Pull Request within a file such as CONTRIBUTING.md would give me pointers on the workflow of a repo.
Howdy - there's a lot to think about in this write-up (Thank you!).
Regarding PRs - is the question "Who should a PR be assigned to?" or "Who is the stakeholder?"
@nodanaonlyzuul That is an excellent question. I was initially thinking, "Who should a PR be assigned to?" You made an excellent point of there is a difference between a stakeholder and a reviewer, while I'm gearing towards "Who should a PR be assigned to?", I think knowing who the stakeholders are (online or offline) is equally important.
@holingpoon as a new member of the team, I agree this would be great.
Another option instead of committing the list of names to source control is a single Google Doc or Sheet that lists each repo and the reviewer & stakeholder names. This way when a new person joins or leaves, it's easy to update in one place rather than across many repos.
This issue is quite old, over a year. Closing, with a tag of archived. @holingpoon, FYI!