| 15:28 | <shu> | thanks for ping, i'll review it today |
| 19:53 | <shu> | other than 2974 are we all green on 2023 cut? |
| 19:56 | <bakkot> | I believe so |
| 21:54 | <Rob Palmer> | I closed the Editors request for feedback today. The results are a 100% approval rating and one text comment:
|
| 22:15 | <jmdyck> | I agree that it's difficult (before review) to ensure conformance to editorial conventions, and that a style guide would help. However, I'm doubtful that it's "held up contributions for months in consecutive rounds of review". Hold-ups and rounds of review do happen, but I don't think editorial conventions are the cause. Maybe I'm forgetting some cases though. |
| 22:18 | <shu> | i take that as a signal that they'd like either quicker turnaround, or for editors to take over for smaller changes instead of asking for multiple rounds of back-and-forths |
| 22:19 | <shu> | and given the unpredictability of available time each of us has from week-to-week, i lean towards the latter solution |
| 22:19 | <shu> | or at least open that up as a request by the PR author, that they can ask us to take something over |
| 22:26 | <Michael Ficarra> | yes, we talked about this feedback at an editor call and decided to take over PRs when they only need minor editorial changes to land |
| 22:33 | <bakkot> | (unless the submitter explicitly requests otherwise; jmdyck I think you've said you'd prefer to manage those things for yourself) |
| 23:29 | <jmdyck> | I'll always want to take my PRs to merge-ready, yes. |
| 23:30 | <jmdyck> | (modulo a squash, I suppose) |