Conversation
catenacyber
force-pushed
the
doc-github-prs-v6
branch
from
5cc6f81 to
f2ee137
Compare
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8946 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.39% 82.39% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 969 969
Lines 273558 273558
==========================================
- Hits 225404 225402 -2
- Misses 48154 48156 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
jufajardini
left a comment
jufajardini
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me! :)
|
|
||
| A PR should be marked as `draft` if it is not intended to be merged as is, | ||
| but is waiting for some sort of feedback. | ||
| The author of the PR should explicit what kind of feedback is expected (CI/QA |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: explicit with what kind of feedback
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for my english
|
The first usage of PR should have the full-name, pull-request. |
I do not understand what you mean here Jason... |
|
Replaced by #8955 |
We use the acronym PR without defining it. Perhaps titling the document "GitHub Pull Request Workflow" would be enough. PR is generally well known, but should still define it near the top. |
3 participants
Link to redmine ticket:
None
Describe changes:
Draft : to be discussed, and to see if the approved filter with
ghcommand is good enough ?Modifies #8926 by taking review into account