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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

doc: remove tsc-review #26506

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

doc: remove tsc-review #26506

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 2 additions & 4 deletions COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -382,9 +381,8 @@ This should be done where a pull request:
- has failed to reach consensus amongst the Collaborators who are
actively 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.
Expand Down
12 changes: 3 additions & 9 deletions GOVERNANCE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -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
Expand Down
2 changes: 0 additions & 2 deletions doc/onboarding.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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
Expand Down