I've got a request: could we try and use explicit pull request approval (the green tick) a bit more to indicate that you are ok with a PR and/or have no objections to it being merged? And conversely, can we try and discipline ourselves to not actually merge a PR until we've received that green tick from at least one other committer, and from everyone who has previously provided review comments on the PR?
The reason I ask is that I often find myself uncertain whether people are fine with the changes I propose and/or how I address their PR feedback, and on the other side I've been caught out a few times where a pull request was merged after I had given some feedback, but before I was really ready to say "looks good to me". When I give feedback but no green approval tick, it usually means that I expect my feedback to be addressed before we can agree to merge.
Not that I think we've merged loads of things we shouldn't have, but I'd like it if we had a bit more explicit community scrutiny in place.
I'm not really in favor of putting full branch protections in place to enforce this, but I'd really appreciate it if we could be a bit more disciplined about this.
Rule of thumb: giving green tick of approval does not mean "I've fully tested this so if it breaks it's my fault". It simply means "I've had a look, seems good,and I have no objections to this being merged".
Cheers,
Jeen
PS if you're waiting for a green tick on a PR and you're not getting, don't be shy about pinging people with a comment or (if that doesn't work) an e-mail.
