Added a page on policies for pants committers

Review Request #4105 — Created July 21, 2016 and submitted

zundel
pants
zundel/committers-doc
3707
670fb51...
pants-reviews
benjyw, cheister, gmalmquist, jsirois, kwlzn, mateor, molsen, nhoward_tw, patricklaw, stuhood

Documents some policies discussed at the last pants summit

https://travis-ci.org/pantsbuild/pants/builds/146345308

Staged at http://pantsbuild.github.io/staging/zundel/committers.html

  • 0
  • 0
  • 7
  • 0
  • 7
Description From Last Updated
ZU
  1. If you want lots of rewrites, you can hack adding suggestions at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eOXQrko_JyuTOLXhUHJ1EJ0VSJTnJWjJPT4cYSSz5W4/edit#

  2. 
      
ZU
BE
  1. Looks good for content! I just had a few style/grammar nits. Notably, I was taught to refer to people using 'who', not 'that', as the latter can sound dehumanising.

  2. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    Nit: Whitespace at the end of the line.

  3. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    s/site/group?

  4. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    And to PyPI?

    1. No, I was thinking pypi would just be for releasers. Adding new owners to pypi projects is a pain.

  5. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    Phrasing: "It is the responsibility of a Committer to ensure" (there's a superfluous 'is' after 'Committer').

  6. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    Writing style nit: the sentence flows better without the 'that': "the quality of the changes they approve"

  7. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    Style nit: some of these bullets end with periods and some don't. I prefer that they all do :), but either way let's be consistent.

  8. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    s/that/who/ in both places.

    Also whitespace at the end of the line.

  9. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    s/that/who/

    Typo: s/acetive/active/

  10. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    Is three months what we discussed? Seems a little short maybe?

    1. What do you consider reasonable?

  11. 
      
MA
  1. Looks good to me. I would like to soften "Be more substantial than simply fixing typos and updating error message" but don't have any helpful suggestions about how to best do that :)

    1. Decided to just remove it and leave it even more vague. Didn't mean to be offputting.

  2. 
      
ST
  1. Thanks Eric!

  2. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    meaty/substantial ? I don't want to insult any vegans...

    1. I agree 'substantial' is a better word.

  3. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     

    The "committers are then approved" sounds a bit too much like a rubber stamp. It would be good if this made it clear that existing committers reserve the right to reject folks with feedback on how they can improve their behaviour.

    Also, maybe a statement on nomination: "Contributors are then eligible to be nominated by an existing committer"

  4. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    "...to ensure that the"

    1. I relocated some of the 'that's that Benjy found down to this line.

  5. 
      
JS
  1. 
      
  2. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revision 1)
     
     

    Stu filed an issue, so this is probably better as:

    ...that is part of the 'twitter’ team (being fixed here).

    Or just dropping the parenthetical until such time as #3708 is resolved at which point this bullet can just be changed.

    1. removed the parentetical

  3. 
      
ZU
ZU
  1. 
      
  2. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revisions 1 - 2)
     
     
     
     

    Reworded this section significantly

  3. src/docs/committers.md (Diff revisions 1 - 2)
     
     

    Added this line

  4. 
      
BE
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
ZU
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Thanks all. Commit cfae8f8e3b3f0d988cdc39429c8ef3831e341a85

Loading...