Closed MattiSG closed 6 years ago
Thanks for your feedback @Anna-Livia.
I'm not really sure what I should do next. I replied to all of your questions and to a couple suggestions. However, I don't really understand what is preventing this PR from being accepted. You just “commented” yet “approved” reviews are required. I am thus currently blocked, and I don't see which element is blocking. Do you want me to rework all the paragraphs on which you offered “propositions”? Do I need to get approval from someone else? 🤔😕 A bit more guidance would be welcome 😅
I'm totally free-riding on this PR to remove a reference to the old API 🏄 .
Don't forget my tiny commit in case of rebase + git push -f
Thanks for the contribution by the way 😉
Pay that ride back with an approve at least!!!!
Hey @MattiSG. Again, 🙌 great PR 🙌 !
A lot of the suggestions I made are dependent on a personnal point of view. I would be very interested by other contributor's input on wording . @fpagnoux @sandcha @maukoquiroga @cbenz
I will be out of town for a few days and I don't want to block this PR with a Request Changes
:)
Pay that ride back with an approve at least!!!!
You're missing the point of free riding
I don't want to block this PR with a Request Changes:)
Well, since approved reviews are required, not approving this PR is blocking it :wink:
Well, since approved reviews are required, not approving this PR is blocking it 😉
I'm pretty sure this is just a cultural miscomprehension. I've seen several teams struggle with this, specially with the accept/request for changes thing. I propose we start a maintainers guide to the official doc.
This is the first PR in a series aimed at increasing the reusability of the Legislation Explorer.
This changeset: