Repository navigation
Conversation
- No. 4.4: whoever gives the final approval queues the PR, or hands that step to a named eligible maintainer; Umer may queue PRs whose second sign-off came last, otherwise the peer reviewer does. - No. 4.1: the 2-working-day window covers second sign-offs and re-reviews, as a time to respond or escalate in; second keys waiting too long are routed to a security reviewer (default @Abidoyesimze). - No. 4.1: fewest-reviews tie-breaker for first reviews, among eligible reviewers only; skillset, availability and recusal still apply. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The objection window closed on Nov 7 with no objections: @robertocarlous and @Santiagocetran both agreed to retro items 1–3 in Discussion 208. So this is now out of draft. CI is green at @robertocarlous or @Santiagocetran, could one of you review it? Whoever gives the approval can queue it, which is retro item 1 itself. |
Codex Review Summary: ✅ CompletedThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b06a029be4
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| **The 2-working-day window covers every review request**, not just the first response: the `foundry/src/**` second sign-off ([No. 4.2](#42-review-depth)) and re-reviews after the author pushes new commits (which dismiss stale approvals, [No. 2](#2-what-github-enforces)) count too. It's a window to respond or escalate in, not a deadline to finish the review: | ||
|
|
||
| - If a review needs more time, the reviewer says so on the PR within the window and states what's left to check. | ||
| - If a second sign-off has waited more than 2 working days, the peer reviewer pings it on the PR. Umer or Abraham can then route it to a security reviewer ([No. 4.2](#42-review-depth)), by default @Abidoyesimze. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For a foundry/src/** PR authored by @robertocarlous, No. 3 makes @Abidoyesimze the peer reviewer; if the Umer/Abraham sign-off is late, this default routes the replacement to the same person, so the PR can proceed with only one independent review despite No. 4.2 requiring the peer review plus a second sign-off. Exclude the existing peer from this fallback or choose another eligible security reviewer.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| ### 4.4 Merge paths | ||
|
|
||
| - **(A) GitHub-side merge commit — the default.** The reviewer approves, CI is green, and the reviewer clicks **Merge when ready** to add the PR to the merge queue. The queue re-runs `CI OK` on the PR merged onto the latest `develop` and lands it with a merge commit. If that run fails, the queue drops the PR and leaves `develop` untouched; fix it on the PR branch and queue it again. If the reviewer wants something changed first, they push the fix onto the PR branch (or open a small follow-up PR). The last-push rule then sends the final approval to someone else. | ||
| - **(A) GitHub-side merge commit — the default.** The reviewer approves, CI is green, and the reviewer clicks **Merge when ready** to add the PR to the merge queue. **The approver queues by default:** whoever gives the final required approval queues the PR once every required check and sign-off is in, unless their review says otherwise. If they can't queue it, or aren't eligible to merge it under [No. 1](#1-the-rule) (for example, they co-authored it), they hand the step to a named eligible maintainer in the review, so no approved PR sits without an owner. When the last thing in is a `foundry/src/**` second sign-off from Umer or Abraham, Umer may queue it himself, and otherwise the peer reviewer does. The queue re-runs `CI OK` on the PR merged onto the latest `develop` and lands it with a merge commit. If that run fails, the queue drops the PR and leaves `develop` untouched; fix it on the PR branch and queue it again. If the reviewer wants something changed first, they push the fix onto the PR branch (or open a small follow-up PR). The last-push rule then sends the final approval to someone else. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a non-approver runs the required din-pr-merge skill, its A3 enqueues on the operator's go-ahead and the skill permits any non-author/co-author to run; it never verifies that the operator gave the final approval or was named in a handoff. This lets the normal tooling bypass the ownership rule in this paragraph, so update the skill to require the final approver or an explicitly named delegate before enqueueing.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
…e peer For @robertocarlous and @Abidoyesimze PRs touching foundry/src/**, the second sign-off is always @umeradl or @abrahamnash. Routing to a security reviewer applies only to other authors, and that reviewer can't be the PR's author or its peer reviewer. Drops the "by default @Abidoyesimze" fallback, which would have made him both peer and second sign-off on Roberto's PRs, or the second sign-off on his own (Codex review No. 1). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Writes the three process changes agreed in the S5 retro of Discussion 208 into
Developer/MAINTAINING.md. They're worded with @Santiagocetran's conditions from his reply. @robertocarlous agreed to all three.This PR stays a draft until the Nov 7 objection window closes.
Docs only. One file changed.
foundry/src/**second sign-off from Umer or Abraham, Umer may queue the PR himself, and otherwise the peer reviewer does.Retro item No. 4 (Umer's review backlog) is an action item, not process, so it isn't in this file.
Per No. 1, this needs a peer's approval. The PR author is
umermjd11, soumeradlcan't approve it.🤖 Generated with Claude Code