Open Marigold opened 2 months ago
One minor thing: I'd rename the command to something shorter, so it is easier to adopt by the team.
From the top of my head, I'm thinking etl pr
, but I'm open to suggestions.
We discussed that you can suggest to review a subset of commits, to make the review more relevant.
We discussed that you can suggest to review a subset of commits, to make the review more relevant.
Yes, Lars suggested an alternative to creating a reference branch and a subbranch. You can simply create a PR that attempts to merge a branch to master. Then, on the upper left corner, you can choose which commits to consider when reviewing. You can skip the commit(s) that duplicated old code. Once you select the ones you want to consider, we can copy that URL and add it to the description of the PR, to point the reviewer to a more convenient view of the changes.
I haven't tried this workflow yet, but it looks promising. If it works well, we can avoid creating a reference branch (and of course it's corresponding staging server). I'll try it out and update the docs accordingly.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
Our guide for updating data suggests creating reference and review branches as best practice. We already use
etl d draft-pr
command which has proven to be handy for automatic PR creation. We could do similar automation for updating data:@lucasrodes suggested
@pabloarosado suggested
It'd make sense to at least create reference & review branches automatically, and then see whether it's worth automating the rest. Leveraging
etl d draft-pr
could make it relatively easy.