Hey everyone,

TL;DR; I have a small proposal/discussion proposal to modify a bit the
branch protection rules for Airflow. Why don't we add a protection
rule in our PRs that requires all the comments in the PRs to be
"marked as resolved" before merging the PR ?

I have been following myself  - for quite some time - an approach that
whenever there are comments/suggestions/doubts in my PRs I do not
merge the PR until I **think** all of those have been addressed
(somehow).

The resolution might not be what the person commenting wants directly,
it might be "I hear your comment, and there are good reasons to do
otherwise" or simply saying - "I know it could be done this way but I
think otherwise" etc. etc. But sometimes I miss that there is a
comment that I have not reacted to, I skipped it unconsciously etc.

I think having "some" kind of reaction to comments and deliberate "I
believe the conversation is resolved" is a very good thing and having
the author making a deliberate effort to "mark the conversation as
resolved" is a sign it's been read, though about and consciously
reacted to.

I've learned recently that you can add protection rule that will
require all conversations on PR to be resolved before merging it, I
even went to a great length to create (and get merged) a PR to ASF
infra to enable it via .asf.yml feature
(https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-p6/pull/1740) - so we can
enable it now by a simple PR to our .asf.yaml enabling it.

I'd love to try it  - but of course it will have to change a bit the
workflow of everyone, where the author (or reviewer, or maintainer)
will have to mark all conversations as resolved deliberately before
merging PR.

I'd love to enable it - at least to try and see how it can work - but
I understand it might add a bit of burden for everyone, however, I
think it might be worth it.

WDYT?

J.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org

Reply via email to