Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: update Reviewing section of onboarding doc #8086

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Aug 12, 2016

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

Description of change

@Trott Trott added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Aug 12, 2016
@addaleax
Copy link
Member

Since this seems like a good place to voice suggestions regarding the process…
I think it might be a good idea to write out “Looks good to me” at least the first one or two times for first-time contributors. Not everyone knows the abbreviation, and while it is easily looked up, it might help with making Node core seem like less of an insider’s club?

* primary goal is for the codebase to improve
* secondary (but not far off) is for the person submitting code to succeed
* helps grow the community
* and draws new people into the project
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you feel these two points were redundant/any other specific reason to drop them?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sadly I'm not sure everyone understands this by default so distilling the why is probably still useful imo

Copy link
Member Author

@Trott Trott Aug 12, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was trying to decide which line to remove because they seemed to be saying the same thing (or at least very similar things) just using different words.

Then I thought the document is probably fine without either of them and removed them both.

I think what those two lines say are implied by the line above them.

But I don't feel that strongly about it and can restore one or the other if anyone feels strongly about it.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 12, 2016

💯 on writing out LGTM = Looks Good To Me. It's also why I defined nit above.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 12, 2016

@addaleax @Fishrock123

  • Spelled out what LGTM stands for
  • Added a sentence explaining why we want new people to be successful (restoring the "grow the community" wording).
  • Similar to defining LGTM and nit, I also replaced all uses of PR in this section with pull request. (If we like that, I can do it throughout the doc. If we'd rather keep it because people might see PR elsewhere, I can explain the acronym in another section. Happy to punt on that for now. I plan on treating this document as more of a living document than I have been, so I don't feel the need to cram in every improvement into this PR...er...this pull request. There will be others...)

@addaleax
Copy link
Member

LGTM ;)

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Aug 13, 2016

Looks good to me

@fhinkel
Copy link
Member

fhinkel commented Aug 14, 2016

LGTM

2 similar comments
@evanlucas
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Aug 15, 2016

LGTM

Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Aug 16, 2016
PR-URL; nodejs#8086
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: targos - Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: jasnell - James M Snell <[email protected]>
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 16, 2016

Landed in b180a5b

@Trott Trott closed this Aug 16, 2016
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2016
PR-URL; #8086
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: targos - Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: jasnell - James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2016
PR-URL; #8086
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: targos - Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: jasnell - James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2016
PR-URL; #8086
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: targos - Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: jasnell - James M Snell <[email protected]>
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2016
PR-URL; #8086
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: targos - Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: jasnell - James M Snell <[email protected]>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2016
PR-URL; #8086
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: targos - Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: jasnell - James M Snell <[email protected]>
@Trott Trott deleted the review branch January 13, 2022 22:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants