Nodejs/node
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nodejs/node.git synced 2024-11-21 10:59:27 +00:00
Code Issues Actions 25 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

doc: remove tsc-review

Browse Source 
The tsc-review label is ineffective. It almost always gets ignored.
Remove it. When requiring TSC attention, people should @-mention the
TSC GitHub team.

PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/26506
Reviewed-By: Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <ruben@bridgewater.de>
This commit is contained in:
Rich Trott 2019-03-07 19:49:22 -08:00
parent 6e81a959d0
commit b4e24e3c96
3 changed files with 5 additions and 15 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View File

@ -305,7 +305,6 @@ in the placeholder's `README`.
For pull requests introducing new core modules:
* Allow at least one week for review.
* Label with the `tsc-review` label.
* Land only after sign-off from at least two TSC members.
* Land with a [Stability Index][] of Experimental. The module must remain
Experimental until a semver-major release.
@ -381,9 +380,8 @@ Do this if a pull request or issue:
- is controversial, or
- is at an impasse among Collaborators who are participating in the discussion.
Assign the `tsc-review` label or @-mention the
`@nodejs/tsc` GitHub team if you want to elevate an issue to the [TSC][].
Do not use the GitHub UI on the right-hand side to assign to
@-mention the `@nodejs/tsc` GitHub team if you want to elevate an issue to the
[TSC][]. Do not use the GitHub UI on the right-hand side to assign to
`@nodejs/tsc` or request a review from `@nodejs/tsc`.
The TSC should serve as the final arbiter where required.

12
GOVERNANCE.md
View File

@ -50,10 +50,6 @@ be accepted unless:
This should only happen if disagreements between Collaborators cannot be
resolved through discussion.
Collaborators may opt to elevate significant or controversial modifications to
the TSC by assigning the `tsc-review` label to a pull request or issue. The
TSC should serve as the final arbiter where required.
See:
* [Current list of Collaborators](./README.md#current-project-team-members)
@ -105,11 +101,9 @@ The intention of the agenda is not to approve or review all patches.
That should happen continuously on GitHub and be handled by the larger
group of Collaborators.
Any community member or contributor can ask that something be reviewed
by the TSC by logging a GitHub issue. Any Collaborator, TSC member, or the
meeting chair can bring the issue to the TSC's attention by applying the
`tsc-review` label. If consensus-seeking among TSC members fails for a
particular issue, it may be added to the TSC meeting agenda by adding the
Any community member or contributor can ask that something be reviewed by the
TSC by logging a GitHub issue. If consensus-seeking among TSC members fails for
a particular issue, it may be added to the TSC meeting agenda by adding the
`tsc-agenda` label.
Prior to each TSC meeting, the meeting chair will share the agenda with

2
doc/onboarding.md
View File

@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ onboarding session.
so that we know what parts of the code base the pull request modifies. It is
not perfect, of course. Feel free to apply relevant labels and remove
irrelevant labels from pull requests and issues.
* Use the `tsc-review` label if a topic is controversial or isn't coming to a
conclusion after an extended time.
* `semver-{minor,major}`:
* If a change has the remote *chance* of breaking something, use the
`semver-major` label