Simplify wording on the code review docs
What does this MR do?
The current wording on the MR review guidelines is problematic:
The merge request author resolves only the threads they have fully addressed. If there's an open reply, an open thread, a suggestion, a question, or anything else, the thread should be left to be resolved by the reviewer.
This leaves very few cases where the author would be able to resolve a thread. It's probably a lot safer and simpler to just say the following:
Open threads should only be resolved by the reviewer.
My arguments for this are the following:
- Resolved diffs are hard to see so it's tricky to see which points were addressed in that review.
- "fully addressed" is really the reviewer's call.
- The more complicated we make the wording, the more likely it is to be mis-interpreted.
Author's checklist
-
Follow the Documentation Guidelines and Style Guide. - [-] If applicable, update the permissions table.
- [-] Link docs to and from the higher-level index page, plus other related docs where helpful.
-
Apply the documentation label.
Review checklist
All reviewers can help ensure accuracy, clarity, completeness, and adherence to the Documentation Guidelines and Style Guide.
1. Primary Reviewer
-
Review by a code reviewer or other selected colleague to confirm accuracy, clarity, and completeness. This can be skipped for minor fixes without substantive content changes.
2. Technical Writer
-
Optional: Technical writer review. If not requested for this MR, must be scheduled post-merge. To request for this MR, assign the writer listed for the applicable DevOps stage.
3. Maintainer
-
Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the above reviews. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review. -
Ensure a release milestone is set. -
If there has not been a technical writer review, create an issue for one using the Doc Review template.
Edited by Sam Beckham