summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorintrigeri <intrigeri@boum.org>2019-04-03 08:53:56 +0000
committerintrigeri <intrigeri@boum.org>2019-04-03 08:53:56 +0000
commit3eeefec68b244ebcc170c507a679ab554495ed25 (patch)
treee5f2a016db8a623cef960609625339d49abaf1ca
parent6df20e2966dd7d6e29cecd1baed3722fe6aeaeb3 (diff)
Improve phrasing.
-rw-r--r--wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/review.mdwn7
-rw-r--r--wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/submit.mdwn10
2 files changed, 10 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/review.mdwn b/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/review.mdwn
index 6a68254..957c314 100644
--- a/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/review.mdwn
+++ b/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/review.mdwn
@@ -24,9 +24,10 @@
maintenance includes: polishing the proposed changes to make them fit
for release; writing and updating the design and end-user
documentations; fixing bugs.
-- As reviewer, you are allowed to commit trivial fixes e.g. {typos in,phrasing of}
- comments and strings on top of the proposed patch to avoid round-trips.
- You need to report back those changes.
+- As reviewer, you are allowed to commit trivial fixes on top of the
+ proposed branch to avoid round-trips: for example, fixing typos
+ and improving phrasing of comments and strings.
+ Then, report back about these changes on the ticket.
- Remember that it's hard to receive negative feedback. Don't forget
to note the good parts, be constructive and precise in your
comments, and never use reviews to make personal attacks. You can
diff --git a/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/submit.mdwn b/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/submit.mdwn
index 8ed7aab..adff779 100644
--- a/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/submit.mdwn
+++ b/wiki/src/contribute/merge_policy/submit.mdwn
@@ -36,7 +36,9 @@ merging, they should set the ticket's *QA Check* field back to *Needs
more dev* or *Needs more info* state, and
from now on it's the responsibility of the branch/ticket "holder" to
change it back to *Ready for QA* once they consider the issues raised by
-the reviewer are fixed. The reviewer is allowed to add trivial changes,
-e.g. {typos in,phrasing of} comments and strings on top of the proposed patch
-to avoid round-trips. But the reviewer needs to communicate those changes to
-the branch/ticket "holder".
+the reviewer are fixed.
+
+The reviewer is allowed to commit trivial fixes on top of the
+proposed branch to avoid round-trips: for example, fixing typos
+and improving phrasing of comments and strings. They must
+report back about these changes on the ticket.