4 ms·
Out of curiosity how do those conversations happen before the PR? Asking because we might have a different process for PRs or a different definition of what it
by pjm331 7y ago
Out of curiosity how do those conversations happen before the PR?
Asking because we might have a different process for PRs or a different definition of what it means to submit a PR - on many teams I’ve been on it’s been encouraged to publish a WIP PR in order to facilitate these conversations. GitHub recently added a feature to formalize that but before this we used labels such as “WIP” and “Ready for review”
- trgn 7y agoIn person, or for a remote job, with screensharing and online chats. In my current job, it generally starts with the implementer reaching out and saying, I want to achieve xyz and think about doing abc. That's how the conversation gets started. Granted, sometimes you need code examples already ready-made to gather meaningful feedback, but that can be personal branch, one-off patch, gist, WIP PR ... feedback can happen over slack, simple chat, comments on the WIP PR ... As long as the final ready-for-review PR doesn't catch the reviewers off guard in terms of overal design/approach.
- underwater 7y agoWIP PRs are fine. Essentially the PR is used as a mechanism to clearly communicate an idea, rather than containing code that is intended to be merged into the codebase. There shouldn't really be a PR review where the author is seeking input on naming/testing completeness and major design choices. Those two types of reviews are mutually exclusive. Alternatives to WIPs include whiteboard discussions, pair programming, and written proposals.
- yoz-y 7y agoFor smaller changes it can happen over a coffee in the hallway. For large changes there are design reviews. For stuff in between you can schedule a meeting with a few concerned people.