diff options
| author | mhamdi semah <mhamdi.semah@gmail.com> | 2019-05-30 23:02:46 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | semah <semah.mhamdi-ext@mousquetaires.com> | 2019-06-12 10:41:07 +0200 |
| commit | aed40ecec38c3c14281f82446d3bbff7b8400a94 (patch) | |
| tree | f5a963f186555cf58ec7bf8ed045ae6fc3feeb33 /contributors | |
| parent | bdf872a799fe894c127e72e64f953fae4d2bb830 (diff) | |
Guide needs to mention setting github status
Guide needs to mention setting github status
Update contributors/guide/community-expectations.md
Co-Authored-By: Guinevere Saenger <guineveresaenger@github.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'contributors')
| -rw-r--r-- | contributors/guide/README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | contributors/guide/community-expectations.md | 2 |
2 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/contributors/guide/README.md b/contributors/guide/README.md index 9c2fcb80..0908d22c 100644 --- a/contributors/guide/README.md +++ b/contributors/guide/README.md @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ To make it easier for your PR to receive reviews, consider the reviewers will ne * break large changes into a logical series of smaller patches which individually make easily understandable changes, and in aggregate solve a broader issue * label PRs with appropriate SIGs and reviewers: to do this read the messages the bot sends you to guide you through the PR process -Reviewers, the people giving the review, are highly encouraged to revisit the [Code of Conduct](/code-of-conduct.md) and must go above and beyond to promote a collaborative, respectful community. +Reviewers, the people giving the review, are highly encouraged to revisit the [Code of Conduct](/code-of-conduct.md) as well as [community expectations](./community-expectations.md#expectations-of-reviewers-review-latency) and must go above and beyond to promote a collaborative, respectful community. When reviewing PRs from others [The Gentle Art of Patch Review](http://sage.thesharps.us/2014/09/01/the-gentle-art-of-patch-review/) suggests an iterative series of focuses which is designed to lead new contributors to positive collaboration without inundating them initially with nuances: * Is the idea behind the contribution sound? diff --git a/contributors/guide/community-expectations.md b/contributors/guide/community-expectations.md index 6a7922fc..dabbb248 100644 --- a/contributors/guide/community-expectations.md +++ b/contributors/guide/community-expectations.md @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ to them. Reviewers are expected to respond to an *active* PRs with reasonable latency, and if reviewers fail to respond, those PRs may be assigned to other reviewers. +If reviewers are unavailable to review for some time, they are expected to set their [user status](https://help.github.com/en/articles/personalizing-your-profile#setting-a-status) to "busy" so that the bot will not request reviews from them on new PRs automatically. If they are unavailable for a longer period of time, they are expected to remove themselves from the OWNERS file and potentially nominate someone else. + *Active* PRs are considered those which have a proper CLA (`cla:yes`) label and do not need rebase to be merged. PRs that do not have a proper CLA, or require a rebase are not considered active PRs. |