nuttxpr commented on PR #16324: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16324#issuecomment-2854570505
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR likely meets the NuttX requirements, but needs some adjustments to fully comply. Here's a breakdown: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** Explains the "why" (missing settings), "what" (.asf.yaml update), and "how" (specific settings being changed). The link to the reference is helpful. * **Acknowledges Impact:** Correctly identifies the impact as changes to the master branch protection. * **Honest Testing:** Acknowledges the lack of complete familiarity and requests review, which is good practice. Marking as a draft is also appropriate. **Weaknesses & Suggestions for Improvement:** * **Summary - Be More Specific:** While the summary lists the settings being changed, it needs more detail about *how* they work. For example, instead of "Require status checks to pass before merge," specify *which* status checks. Instead of "Setup reviews parameters," state the *specific* review requirements (e.g., minimum number of reviewers). * **Impact - Detail Changes:** Expand on the impact. How will branch protections affect developers? Will it change their workflow? This section should be more user-centric. For example, mention how the changes prevent accidental pushes to master and enforce code review. * **Testing - Insufficient Logs:** The "Testing" section lacks concrete testing logs. While fully testing these settings might be difficult before merging, you can still provide *examples* of how you expect the settings to behave. For instance, show the expected error message if someone tries to push directly to master. Alternatively, if you have a test repository you used to experiment, include logs from that. * **Testing - Clarify Check Names:** Follow up with @lupyuen and @hartmannathan about the check names *before* requesting review from Apache Admins. This will streamline the review process. * **Linear History:** Make a decision about enforcing linear history. Research the pros and cons and explain your reasoning in the PR description. **Specific Action Items:** 1. **Detail the settings changes in the Summary.** Provide concrete values and explain how each setting will function. 2. **Expand the Impact section.** Focus on the user perspective and explain how the changes will affect their workflow. 3. **Improve the Testing section.** Either provide example logs demonstrating expected behavior or explain why testing is limited at this stage. If possible, test in a controlled environment. 4. **Confirm the check names.** Contact @lupyuen and @hartmannathan. 5. **Decide about linear history.** Explain your reasoning in the PR. By addressing these points, your PR will be much stronger and more likely to be accepted quickly. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
