Describe Pull Request Review Process

[nelsonic]

"We'll finish what we started..." https://youtu.be/hgKDu5pp_fU

• adds detail for PR Review Process #64
• Adds diagram for contributing process: #59
• Clearly instruct people to open an issue before opening a Pull Request. https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/4
• add screenshot of "checks failing" for PR section: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/37
• re-word reason for using issues see: #47
• advise people to not submit issues without descriptions: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/38
• changed wording of Repo description to encourage people to :star: the repo once they have read and understood the content of the Readme: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/39
• simplify the process described in: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/33
• Gives clear instructions for assigning PRs to other people: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/31
• addresses most of the points raised in @iteles' "tl;dr" issue: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/28 (Inês to confirm...)
• gives example(s) of good PRs: fixes https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/18
• removes Table Of Contents: https://github.com/dwyl/contributing/issues/12 (no longer required)
• clear instructions for Time Estimation including Open Source work: #33
• adds note on Revising Time Estimates ... ⌛️

[nelsonic]

@iteles i've attempted to add the PR review process instructions and tidied up a bit. please review when you can so we can get this updated. thanks. p.s. I haven't touched the "Labels" section beyond linking to #40 Please assign to me if you are low on time and I will PR the change. Thanks! 👍

[iteles]

This is crazy impressive, so much time has gone into making this flow! 👏

My only note is that it is still very lengthy which is the reason people have told us the process is hard to internalise/follow/remember in the past. I feel that there is still the need for a shortened version that people can still use as reference (hence #12 and #28) once they have read through this process. But there are issues open on this.

[nelsonic]

While I agree that the doc is lengthy, I have made the effort to break it down in to a "3 Part" Process with a simple-ish diagram. I'd be delighted if someone can simplify it further.

Ultimately I can give requirements for what the doc needs to contain and what sections it needs to have. but I'm not good with engrish so would be stoked if someone else would do the writing...! 👍

[nelsonic]

@iteles I have made all the changes you have suggested (so far in your PR review). I'm happy to keep making changes until we are "content" with the content. But equally would be stoked if someone else made those changes/improvements. This is really meant to be a collaborative effort where everyone in the Org helps to evolve the "contributing guide/process" over time... #HelpWanted More review comments gladly welcomed. ❤️ ✅ 🚀

[iteles]

:+1: Merging this so people can start reviewing as a whole which I think will be more useful.