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.

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

Review Mergify rules #24

Closed
7 of 12 tasks
octonato opened this issue Jan 31, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed
7 of 12 tasks

Review Mergify rules #24

octonato opened this issue Jan 31, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@octonato
Copy link
Contributor

octonato commented Jan 31, 2019

We have discussed a few options for Mergify rules and here is what I remember so far. Feel free to add/modify it.

Framework / Library Projects

  • WIP rule to block auto merge. Experiment with WipBot didn't work as expected
  • backport/forwardport driven by labels
  • squash only when label present (edit: squash by default, use label to opt-out 👇)
  • merge instead of squash driven by labels (tracked in Tweak Mergify to allow not squashing #25)
  • Preserve PR title when merging/squashing (required Mergify PR - see Preserved PR title when merging/squashing #23)
  • Preserve PR title when backporting (required Mergify PR - see Fix mergify backport message #15)
  • CLA check, no automation without CLA
  • dismiss review on PR update
  • dismiss merge label on PR update
  • require at least 2 approvals (???) - I don't remember the decision on this

Sample Projects (Template Control rules)

  • WIP rule to block auto merge. Experiment with WipBot didn't work as expected
  • human-created PRs should use the same rules as in "Framework / Library Projects"
@dwijnand dwijnand added the ready label Feb 14, 2019
@octonato
Copy link
Contributor Author

octonato commented Mar 27, 2019

So far I got this done in:

Already in place for Lagom and Play:

  • backport to maintenance branch
  • WIP rule
  • auto-merge for scala-steward

Side projects.

  • No backporting - since those project have low latency, I guess we don't really work with a 'maintenance' branch. Instead we merge on master and eventually we release from it. @marcospereira, can you confirm?
  • WIP rule
  • auto-merge for scala-steward

I didn't touch the community driven repos.
https://github.com/playframework/play-meta/blob/master/repos.md#community-driven

I didn't touch playframework/play-generated-docs either because we don't usually send PRs to this one.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@dwijnand
Copy link
Member

No remaining issues.

@dwijnand
Copy link
Member

Well there's #61, but let's close this aggregating issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants