It's good to usually merge stuff without waiting too long, particularly when follow-up work is likely. In master those changes will likely get tested more as more people will use them.

If there is a plan for a sequence of steps then that should be notified in an issue, possibly with a set of checkboxes listing the steps so they can be checked off as each PR on the process happens. But you can't expect people to read your mind about what your future plans for follow up are.

Those of us here with English as a first language need to remember that although we have the same language, we don't have the same technical, professional, experience or cultural backgrounds. So we may speak alike, but we do not think alike. That means we need to put more effort into communicating our background reasoning and future intentions and not assume others will understand automatically and will come to the same conclusion about how a specific PR should be approached.

For instance, concern has been expressed that some PRs are rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic and not achieving any substantive improvement. Whilst I defend your right to align deckchairs, it would be good to know if their is a master plan behind it or just an itchy spot to scratch.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.