diff options
| author | MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com> | 2022-02-23 18:51:57 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com> | 2022-02-23 19:20:06 +0100 |
| commit | fa0819eea380047c9d7404895d3e4e8ea37930bb (patch) | |
| tree | e8fe695aebe0ecb046da523387148a51b6fbffe6 /CONTRIBUTING.md | |
| parent | fa2b65b3583e7e7ffa892bf2453720b0d2bd7904 (diff) | |
| download | bitcoin-fa0819eea380047c9d7404895d3e4e8ea37930bb.tar.xz | |
doc: Move peer-review paragraph to right section
Diffstat (limited to 'CONTRIBUTING.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | CONTRIBUTING.md | 10 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 2330967b45..55f599fdd2 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ At this stage, one should expect comments and review from other contributors. Yo can add more commits to your pull request by committing them locally and pushing to your fork until you have satisfied all feedback. -Note: Code review is a burdensome but important part of the development process, and as such, certain types of pull requests are rejected. In general, if the **improvements** do not warrant the **review effort** required, the PR has a high chance of being rejected. It is up to the PR author to convince the reviewers that the changes warrant the review effort, and if reviewers are "Concept NACK'ing" the PR, the author may need to present arguments and/or do research backing their suggested changes. +Please refer to the [peer review](#peer-review) section below for more details. ### Squashing Commits @@ -322,6 +322,14 @@ maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions). +Code review is a burdensome but important part of the development process, and +as such, certain types of pull requests are rejected. In general, if the +**improvements** do not warrant the **review effort** required, the PR has a +high chance of being rejected. It is up to the PR author to convince the +reviewers that the changes warrant the review effort, and if reviewers are +"Concept NACK'ing" the PR, the author may need to present arguments and/or do +research backing their suggested changes. + #### Conceptual Review A review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment |