CONTRIBUTING: don't mention "ready-for-review" #905
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Phasing out the "ready-for-review" label in favor of GitHub's "Draft Pull Request" system, per rpm-software-management#821. Also removed the mention of the "work in progress" label; I think we want to use this for PRs that need significant redesign rather than PRs where the author is requesting additional help.
|
LGTM |
Conan-Kudo
approved these changes
Sep 21, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Phasing out the "ready-for-review" label in favor of GitHub's "Draft Pull Request" system, per
#821.
Also removed the mention of the "work in progress" label; I think we want to use this for PRs that need significant redesign rather than PRs where the author is requesting additional help.
If this is merged, I'll remove the "ready-for-review", "changes-requested", "dnf5", and "deferred" labels; that seemed to be the consensus in #821.