From 6ed81eadbfed68357d8a7dbe09ac9c22b9cc089f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jorik Schellekens Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:52:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Some grammar and clarifications. --- docs/review.md | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/review.md b/docs/review.md index 061bea2e..7e0b413a 100644 --- a/docs/review.md +++ b/docs/review.md @@ -41,15 +41,15 @@ When reviewing code, here are some things we look for and also things we avoid: ### Workflow -* Authors should request review from riot-web team by default (if someone on the - team is clearly the expert in an area, a direct review request to them may be - more appropriate) +* Authors should request review from the riot-web team by default (if someone on + the team is clearly the expert in an area, a direct review request to them may + be more appropriate) * Reviewers should remove the team review request and request review from themselves when starting a review to avoid double review -* Authors should link to other layers of their PR in their PR before requesting - review. Reviewers might be coming from different places and could miss other - required PRs. -* Avoid force pushing to a PR after first round of review +* If there are multiple related PRs authors should reference each of the PRs in + the others before requesting review. Reviewers might start reviewing from + different places and could miss other required PRs. +* Avoid force pushing to a PR after the first round of review * Use the GitHub default of merge commits when landing (avoid alternate options like squash or rebase) * PR author merges after review (assuming they have write access)