Suggesting changes to new "Walk the InnerSource talk" pattern#3
Conversation
…fied and potential solutions
nejch
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for proactively adding the review changes already @spier! Yes, collaborating with org forks can be a bit cumbersome, we keep forgetting 😅 I just found a few nits that either you or Marion can address here I think.
I've added you @deveaud-m in case you didn't get the notification 🙇
Co-authored-by: Nejc Habjan <hab.nejc@gmail.com>
|
@spier thanks a lot for reviewing the pattern and putting additions expected by the InnerSourceCommons maintainer. And sorry for making this review more difficult than it should have been, lessons learned from upstream collaboration 🙇♀️ I reviewed @nejch comments, maybe you want to have a look at them. Otherwise your changes look good to me. |
|
@deveaud-m @nejch thanks for the review. I pushed the suggested fixes. Feel free to merge, and then we can also merge into the upstream :) |
Suggesting some changes to your new pattern.
As an aside
GitHub does not allow me to push directly to the branch of InnerSourceCommons#813, as your branch lives in an organization-owned fork.
Therefore it seemed easiest to propose changes by me sending a PR to your branch. Once merged, those changes will then show up on the PR above as well. Complicated but apparently the way to go ;)
FYI here then GitHub docs related to this