- Most of these were fine still, apart from:
- FAQ: `hub` is less maintained than `gh`.
- Brew-Maintainer-Guide: link to GitHub docs on commit signing via GPG or SSH.
- Interesting-Taps-and-Forks: remove outdated information about `homebrew/core` being in `Library/Taps`.
- New-Maintainer-Checklist: remove outdated information about the `@members` team.
- At the AGM we formed an ad-hoc documentation working group.
- One of our ideas was that we should have a last reviewed date for
documentation, so that we can periodically implement a review
mechanism (GitHub Actions posts to Slack for a regular documentation
outdatedness check?) to track how old docs are and ensure they're
still relevant.
- This is a first step towards that goal, by adding a `last_review_date`
to the metadata of all docs with a date of earlier than Homebrew's
inception because everything needs reviewing so that we start from a
good base!
- Move the guidelines from Homebrew/brew Maintainer Guide to
Maintainer Guidelines as they apply to all repositories.
- Clarify the guidelines to make it clear that the default option
should be to approve a PR, with or without comments.
- Note in the New Maintainer Checklist that the most important task for
maintainers is reviewing pull requests.
Co-authored-by: Issy Long <me@issyl0.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: Sam Ford <1584702+samford@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Knibbe <enk3@outlook.com>
- make the CodeCov CI job informational. We don't want red PRs just
because the coverage varies slightly. We still get comments inline
saying where code coverage is met; this is more useful during review
than a single number and failing status
- make the Triage CI job do less: instead of enforcing a time period for
review window, make it only exist to self-approve PRs for merge and
require a maintainer otherwise to review
