Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify labelling strategy #285

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 21, 2017
Merged

Conversation

lorenzwalthert
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #284. @krlmlr I created saamwerk and described the labelling strategy there since I think it might be useful in other places too. I hope that's ok with you. I think it would be nice to integrate these recommendations in some existing open source and I tried https://opensource.guide but they don't accept self nominations. Any ideas where I could try to submit?

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #285 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #285   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.17%   92.17%           
=======================================
  Files          28       28           
  Lines        1188     1188           
=======================================
  Hits         1095     1095           
  Misses         93       93

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5629250...c46ef2a. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@krlmlr krlmlr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. Closing unresolved issues has an important downside I forgot: When searching for issues, it's difficult to filter for closed-but-unresolved issues. (But it's easy to filter for open issues.) We might want to revisit later (and maybe reopen the resolved issues after CRAN release)m, but it's fine for now.

@lorenzwalthert
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, that's right. Yes we may want to change the policy after the CRAN release.

@lorenzwalthert lorenzwalthert merged commit 105933c into r-lib:master Nov 21, 2017
@lorenzwalthert lorenzwalthert deleted the github branch November 21, 2017 07:43
krlmlr added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 27, 2017
- Adapt documentation (#290).
- Add roundtrip (#287).
- Fix AppVeyor builds.
- Fix token insertion / comment interaction (#279).
- Clarify labelling strategy (#285).
- Fixing and extending Rstudioaddins (#283).
- Fix eq assign parsing (#276).
- style_files -> vectorized style_file (#273).
- Refactoring (#270).
- Fix CI (#275).
- Fix covr (#274).
- Renaming files (#271).
- Handle styling of an unsaved active file (#243).
- Test R 3.1 and R 3.2 (#249).
- Allow empty {} without line break (#261).
- Wrap expr in expr before enclosing with curly braces (#263).
- Avoid checking for hard-coded dot (#262).
- Account for dependency renaming (utf8 changed to enc) (#264).
- Indention of function declaration and closing braces (#260).
- Only remove line break before closing with strict option (#252).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants