Merge rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#1945: policy: Add refactor carve out
55be538dac
policy: Add refactor carve out (Tobin C. Harding) Pull request description: I have managed to burn out or bore our reviewers/maintainers. Getting two acks is becoming increasingly difficult. I've pestered everyone to the limit that I feel socially comfortable doing so, and as such, am requesting a carve out to the 2-ACK before merge rule. The primary justification is that I feel we should have a bit more of BDFL and a bit less total consensus if we are to push forwards. ### Example PRs where this change would apply - https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/1925 - https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/1854 - https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/1862 ACKs for top commit: elichai: I agree this makes sense for refactors ACK55be538dac
apoelstra: ACK55be538dac
sanket1729: ACK55be538dac
. Same reasons as apoelstra. And this is only for re-factors that are not adding any new features. RCasatta: ACK55be538dac
Tree-SHA512: a5e206252015f49245ed282a3be7a35760d16f94dc6e60f31edf589a41ef642eba52a3bd7d1375b6033f3cf0128f47beee4f03e59cad151c64eedd71ac98baac
This commit is contained in:
commit
1b952def81
|
@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ grammar fixes.
|
|||
|
||||
Pull request merge requirements:
|
||||
- all CI test should pass,
|
||||
- at least two "accepts"/ACKs from the repository maintainers
|
||||
- at least two "accepts"/ACKs from the repository maintainers (see "refactor carve out").
|
||||
- no reasonable "rejects"/NACKs from anybody who reviewed the code.
|
||||
|
||||
Current list of the project maintainers:
|
||||
|
@ -164,6 +164,15 @@ Current list of the project maintainers:
|
|||
- [Riccardo Casatta](https://github.com/RCasatta)
|
||||
- [Tobin Harding](https://github.com/tcharding)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Refactor carve output
|
||||
|
||||
The repository is going through heavy refactoring and "trivial" API redesign
|
||||
(eg, rename `Foo::empty` to `Foo::new`) as we push towards API stabilization. As
|
||||
such reviewers are either bored or overloaded with notifications, hence we have
|
||||
created a carve out to the 2-ACK rule.
|
||||
|
||||
A PR may be considered for merge if it has a single ACK and has sat open for at
|
||||
least two weeks with no comments, questions, or NACKs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Coding conventions
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue