... | ... | @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ should be marked with the `WIP:` prefix in the merge request title. |
|
|
- **Label:** ~"MR::1-under review"
|
|
|
- **Owner**: Author
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the the author feels that the patch is ready it is their responsibility to
|
|
|
When the author feels that the patch is ready it is their responsibility to
|
|
|
identify an appropriate set of approvers; this is the group of
|
|
|
people who will be notified of the new merge request with the intention that
|
|
|
they will contribute to the code review performed in Step (2).
|
... | ... | @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ for details on what this review entails. |
|
|
|
|
|
The final review should not impose significant delay: within one
|
|
|
working day a maintainer should either put it in the merge queue, or else push
|
|
|
it back into the [Techincal Review](#2-technical-review) stage with a comment.
|
|
|
it back into the [Technical Review](#2-technical-review) stage with a comment.
|
|
|
Such a push-back does not imply that the MR is bad; only that for some reason
|
|
|
it is not quite ready, and inviting the author to address the concern.
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |