I wasn't sure exactly in what way it was problematic, so I was a bit
vague in the justification (though justifications aren't generally
needed/provided here anyway - so I'm not sure it'd be net helpful to add
one anyway).
Also a small pass on workflow names.
Note, I'm a little concerned that the test/nightly release/pre-commit
endpoints may be fragile. At the same time, it's also where it may be
most useful, to prevent network access by arbitrary test code. I think
this is imperfect, but maybe we can try it out and see if it's much of
an issue.
Note, the discord wiki action is currently broken, this should fix it.
chandlerc had originally added these and previously expressed being okay with removing them. They've just proven too complex to be applied; it needs to be easier for people to want to do it.
This removes the separate data files, which have been failing to load properly ([example](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/runs/7957047892?check_suite_focus=true)). This one wasn't working previously, but hopefully will with these changes (and it might've also just been a pull_request_target issue, but the silent "Resource not accessible by integration" failures aren't great).
Encourage reviewers to merge when they feel okay doing so. Let reviewers make
that choice. Let authors say they'll merge themselves.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
- Generally replace Discourse mentions with GitHub Discussions, per #444
- Switch from "Discord Chat" to just "Discord" because there's no more ambiguity, and "Discord" is the more common term.
- Fix mentions of "core team" to "Carbon leads" (because the touched docs overlap a lot).
Co-authored-by: Matthew Riley <mdriley@gmail.com>
Adopts new copyright and markdown toc checks.
The new toc check generates the toc header, so that's why all the md files changed (this had felt better to me for the long-term, more auto-generated content)
Carbon needs a strong code review process to handle code (and other)
changes that are not significant proposals. This attempts to provide
clear guidance on the process, structure, and scope of code review.
It also gives detailed guidance on how to effectively do code review
for both reviewers and authors.
This proposal was accepted on 2020-08-04.
Jon Ross-Perkins
David Blaikie
josh11bandChandler Carruth
Krishna Agarwal
Joshua Peterson
Jon Meow
