Merging PRs

[jimmynotjim]

A question as to who should be merging PRs came up in #35. The dev manual says:

Don’t: Merge your own pull requests!

But within Flapjack we've found there are a few good reasons to merge your own requests after the appropriate number of sign-offs (we chose two reviewers)

• gives author a chance to cleanup and squash any edits (if desired);
• fix conflicts (sometimes there's a conflict, you fix it, then no one get's around to merging and new conflicts come up, creating a cycle of "please fix conflict" comments and related commits);
• merge when appropriate (sometimes multiple PRs need to go together).

In addition to this, merging our own PRs after being properly reviewed follows the bit about being trusted as a technology professional discussed in the Pain Points issue - https://[GHE]/sheltonw/2014-performance-kanban/issues/63#issuecomment-38650

[ascott1]

I think this is definitely a conversation worth having, but one we should have with the team at large (not just the front-end team).

[mistergone]

Time travel! Almost four months later, I'll add that our Team decided to merge our own pull requests after requiring reviews. This puts the responsibility of getting a PR through on the person who made it, instead of a PR floating in space until someone decides to look at it. It means the Pull Requester has to get Teammates to review and comment so their code gets included.

[jimmynotjim]

Trend setters!! I think this is something we should really be bringing back up, and @ascott1 you're right it should be an org level discussion. Maybe we can schedule a conversation at the next Dev Cop after @virtix is back from leave? Or should we just start an internal issue in D&D?

[ascott1]

Maybe we can schedule a conversation at the next Dev Cop after @virtix is back from leave? Or should we just start an internal issue in D&D?

I'd vote yes to both of these. Maybe start with the issue and set a hard deadline of "we're going to talk about and finalize this at the Dev CoP meeting on xx/xx/xx."

[jimmynotjim]

Opened an internal discussion in the handbook repo, issue 167 (sorry, no links)