Open rhuss opened 6 years ago
Perhaps we can be more explicit for the pr/handover
label, something like pr/remove-to-merge
? And perhaps we can use [ok to merge]
(or 👌 to be real hipsters) instead of [handover]
?
Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that as it is more explicit.
Latest thoughts on this feature (from https://github.com/syndesisio/syndesis/pull/1914#issuecomment-376429235):
Currently, "pr/wip" could be used, too, but this is not so transparent for people looking at such a PR.
The actual label should be configurable, though.
@zregvart and I tested yesterday a workflow for a PR which I approved in general but had one comment which might or might not be addressed (so 'nice to have'). If I would have approved it directly, then the PR gets merged immediately with no chance for the author to address the comment if he wants (he would have to open a new PR). On the other hand, I don't want to come back to the PR if there is no change. So I added a "WIP" label. The author then could either change his code because of the comment (then the Review status is reset and it would be awesome if the "Approved" label would be removed, too). Or, if he still wants to have it merged fast just remove the "WIP" label, then the PR gets merged automatically. Some sort of 'handover' of the PR back to the original author.
My idea is to extend pure-bot:
Thinking about it, I would consolidate the labels with semantics for pure-bot to:
Happy for other naming suggestion, though.
@syndesis/all wdyt ?