CONTRIBUTING: Allow collaborative pull requests #8
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
LGTM |
3 similar comments
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
|
@wking this needs a rebase plz |
For runtime-spec, there are often PRs that pickup and reroll another user's commits (e.g. opencontainers/runtime-spec#337). As long as the Signed-off-by entries are there (for the DCO) and the new PR references the earlier work (to avoid maintainer confusion), I see no problem with this sort of collaboration. I thought about replacing the old wording with words like the above paragraph, but it seemed overly prescriptive. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
force-pushed
the
allow-collaboration
branch
from
94f8361 to
84b4812
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
For runtime-spec, there are often PRs that pickup and reroll another
user's commits (e.g. opencontainers/runtime-spec#337). As long as the
Signed-off-by entries are there (for the DCO) and the new PR
references the earlier work (to avoid maintainer confusion), I see no
problem with this sort of collaboration.
I thought about replacing the old wording with words like the above
paragraph, but it seemed overly prescriptive.