Just wanted to remind everyone, we are nearing the end of the trial period for "require conversation" feature to be enabled. I have my own observations and examples, but since I was the one to propose it, I am likely biased, so I'd love to hear from others what their feedback and assessment is. Or maybe we need more time to assess it ?
I would love to hear your thoughts. J, On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 2:20 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > After an initial indentation problem in .asf.yaml it's not working as > expected. So .... let's see how resolving conversations will work for us. > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 12:17 PM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Wooho! Looking to see how this turns out for airflow 😃 >> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 at 1:35 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > As discussed in >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/cs6mcvpn2lk9w2p4oz43t20z3fg5nl7l I just >> > enabled "require conversation resolution" for our main/stable branches. >> We >> > have not used it in the past so it might not work as we think or we >> might >> > need to tweak something. >> > >> > Generally speaking (if all works) all conversations on PRs should be >> > resolved before we can merge the PR. This "resolving" is encouraged to >> be >> > done by the author when they think the conversation is resolved, but it >> can >> > also be done by reviewers or the maintainer who wants to merge the PR. >> > >> > We attempted to describe some basic rules and expectations here: >> > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst#step-5-pass-pr-review >> > but undoubtedly there will be questions and issues that we might want to >> > solve - so feel free to discuss it here or raise question/issues in >> > #development channel in slack (I am also happy to be pinged directly >> about >> > it and help to resolve any issues/gather feedback). >> > >> > J. >> > >> >
