As we are just 3 - 4 collaborators working on this project at the moment
awaiting on 2 reviews for merging is turning a bit of a blocker.
In order to keep moving on perhaps defining code owners while we grow
is a good idea, so all PRs are reviewed by more active members instead of
waiting for 2 code reviewers. (we usually have just one).
To keep the structure of the project and provide the most of the feedback
before officially merging a PR I think that its important to keep PR reviews from
at least 1 collaborator.
Suggestions on this or other approach would be awesome I think is important
to avoid the BDFL kind model and move forward to a open governance.
If you want to be a code owner just edit the CODEOWNERS file but keep in mind that
your review will be required in future PRs!
As we are just 3 - 4 collaborators working on this project at the moment awaiting on 2 reviews for merging is turning a bit of a blocker.
In order to keep moving on perhaps defining code owners while we grow is a good idea, so all PRs are reviewed by more active members instead of waiting for 2 code reviewers. (we usually have just one).
To keep the structure of the project and provide the most of the feedback before officially merging a PR I think that its important to keep PR reviews from at least 1 collaborator.
Suggestions on this or other approach would be awesome I think is important to avoid the BDFL kind model and move forward to a open governance.
If you want to be a code owner just edit the CODEOWNERS file but keep in mind that your review will be required in future PRs!