Conversation
portfiend
requested changes
Aug 26, 2026
|
|
||
| Like category D, these pull requests are considered "pre-approved", and **do not require a vote** as it is expected that Wizard's Den will have provided a level of quality control as to the pull request's contents. | ||
|
|
||
| If the author of a category E pull request suspects that commit(s) within the pull request may require a vote, they should make note of these commit(s) within the body of the pull request. All category E pull requests require **at least one triage review** to catch any commit(s) that may require a vote. Any Microcosm representative may initiate a vote to revert any commit(s) within this pull request at their discretion. If such a vote passes, reverting the commit(s) should be done in a seperate pull request. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| If the author of a category E pull request suspects that commit(s) within the pull request may require a vote, they should make note of these commit(s) within the body of the pull request. All category E pull requests require **at least one triage review** to catch any commit(s) that may require a vote. Any Microcosm representative may initiate a vote to revert any commit(s) within this pull request at their discretion. If such a vote passes, reverting the commit(s) should be done in a seperate pull request. | |
| If the author of a category E pull request suspects that commit(s) within the pull request may require a vote, they should make note of these commit(s) within the body of the pull request. All category E pull requests require **at least one triage review** to catch any commit(s) that may require a vote. Any Microcosm representative may initiate a vote to revert any commit(s) within this pull request at their discretion. If such a vote passes, reverting the commit(s) should be done in a separate pull request. |
historically we've tended to bring up these commits and handle the vote before the upmerge even passes, which i think is fine, but i think it should be clarified somewhere that an upmerge should not be held up by revert votes, and the revert vote process is completely separate from the upmerge
Comment on lines
+59
to
+70
| Any "fix commits," or otherwise any commits that do not belong to Wizard's Den, must be rebased using `git rebase -i` to keep the number of commits to a minimum. These commits require **at least one code review** before the pull request may be merged. | ||
|
|
||
| :::note | ||
|
|
||
| Expect more detailed documentation on the technical aspects of how to properly perform an upmerge in the future. | ||
|
|
||
| ::: | ||
|
|
||
| Category E pull requests require the following documentation: | ||
| - Any merge conflicts that were resolved between Macrocosm and Wizard's Den, and how they were resolved. | ||
| - Any changes made to Macrocosm content that could be classified as a 'breaking change' by the standards of other pull request categories (for example, replacing one component with another after an upstream refactor). | ||
| - Any changes that were made to resolve test fails if such a change was not already documented by the above criteria. No newline at end of file |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think all of this information is under the scope of "how to do an upmerge", which should be included in a future "Upstream Merge Conventions" document. i'd like to keep this specific document clean by simply listing all voting categories with a description of what kind of PRs would fall into a certain category, and how votes are processed for that category
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah understandable. i'll comment it out for now so its easy to copy over
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Basically just compiling a lot of what april and huck have made note of so far.
Feel free to make suggestions. That note there is because people have expressed interest in creating some proper tutorials for upmerging. i forget who but i would not be surprised if it was portfiend yet again