-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
meta: note re author check in COLLABORATOR_GUIDE #16360
Conversation
COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
Outdated
associated with the author's account and the first-time contributor | ||
will not be promoted to Contributor once their first commit is landed. | ||
If in doubt, please contact the author before landing, then abort and reapply | ||
the patch if the author have changed their username and email |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
have --> has
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. Thank you.
COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
Outdated
If you land a somebody else's PR (especially a first-time contributor's PR), | ||
please make sure that a username and an email in the log match the ones | ||
in the author's GitHub account. Otherwise, the commits will not be properly | ||
associated with the author's account and the first-time contributor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should there be a comma after author's account
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not a collaborator, but 👍
This adds yet another thing to address to our already complex landing procedure. I understand the importance but I think it should be Collaborator's responsibility not our. Checking every single first time contributor account seems a bit too much. Also if the email is private, how do you know if it matches the one in the patch? |
FWIW I think it's possible to check this simply within the PR by going to commits and seeing if their name is linked or not. This check could be a part of reviewing PRs from first-time contributors. |
Well, for this case I've added a suggestion to contact the author. As I said, I am not sure if this is not an overcaution. If this is considered a tangible burden, then I will close the PR. |
@apapirovski Can you suggest the place and the wording for this variant? Or maybe you can open a new PR, then I will close this one in favor of yours. I am still not very good at long English texts. |
I think a better way to avoid this kind of incidents is via automation. Probably can update node-review to do some checks (I have a rough idea, but need another sample to test). |
@vsemozhetbyt I think we can keep this open, maybe a few more people will chime in with different suggestions. And I agree re: automation. Either node-review could do it (does everyone use it though?) or — and I don't know how our bot works so take this with a grain of salt — it's probably something that a bot could be made to do. |
cc @evanlucas re node-review (and core-validate-commit ?) and @nodejs/github-bot re github-bot |
Wait, I found an example (and oops, I landed that). I think it is simpler than I thought. Just look at the icons, they don't match. I think we don't really need automation to identify this. |
And yet we miss it all the time. :( Part of it is that in the PR above there are 4 commits and so it's a lot more obvious, but it's very easy to miss it when it's just one commit. I think having a label and an automated comment from a bot would go a long way towards not having any commits land with the wrong email. I'll have a look at the bot this weekend to see if this is possible and if so, how much effort it would take. And in all honesty, the more we automate, the less pressure there is on collaborators to get everything just right. |
COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
Outdated
@@ -452,6 +452,15 @@ Check number of commits and commit messages | |||
$ git log upstream/master...master | |||
``` | |||
|
|||
If you land a somebody else's PR (especially a first-time contributor's PR), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
land a somebody else's
-> land somebody else's
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed.
Totally +1 @apapirovski intersted in nodejs/TSC#392 ? :D |
I think this is fine as long as we understand that people are going to forget this until we automate it. We ask collaborators to check approvals, check CI was run, and to check I also emailed Github Support about the problem, hopefully they can do something that improves the situation. |
FWIW, I am playing with the Github GraphQL API today and looks like this is what the entry |
GitHub said they'd look into it, but the two cases linked here (#16339 (comment) and #15976 (comment)) are already updated (since 5 hours ago). So it sounds like it's not the end of the world if we don't catch this before landing. |
Does adding the email to |
So maybe we can leave this PR open for a while as a reminder, till we try to automate this or fall back on a document solution with a consensus. |
Hey, we just implemented this check in |
Closing for now as nodejs/automation is evolving inspiringly. |
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
doc, meta
I still feel uneasy about this incident (see also #16339 (comment): the author still is not promoted), so I am trying to add a note for a lander side as well, something like the #16340 has done for the authors' side. I hope this is not an overcaution.
Please, correct my wording if necessary.
I wish I had compared this data yesterday:
I am sorry, @hyades.