|
|
@@ -25,12 +25,16 @@ When evaluating pull requests for Alpine.js, assess the following:
|
|
|
- Does it follow Alpine's philosophy of simplicity?
|
|
|
- Could it be implemented more simply?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-### 5. Description Quality
|
|
|
+### 5. Precedent
|
|
|
+- Does this PR (both public facing additions and internal implementation) follow established precedents in the project
|
|
|
+- Does it use terms that are unfamiliar to the project as of yet?
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+### 6. Description Quality
|
|
|
- Is there a clear explanation of what/why/how?
|
|
|
- Are breaking changes documented?
|
|
|
- Is backward compatibility addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-### 6. Community Engagement
|
|
|
+### 7. Community Engagement
|
|
|
- Are there comments, reviews, or discussions?
|
|
|
- Has it been approved by maintainers?
|
|
|
- Are there any conflicting opinions or unresolved concerns?
|
|
|
@@ -62,4 +66,8 @@ gh api repos/alpinejs/alpine/pulls/[number]/comments # View comments
|
|
|
# Testing
|
|
|
npm test # Run all tests
|
|
|
npm run build # Build all packages
|
|
|
-```
|
|
|
+```
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Summary
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+After assessing the pull request on the above qualities, provide a summary explaining the problem this PR addresses and the fix, and why it's a good or bad fix. Do it in plain language as if you are personally advising me on what the PR is and weather or not I should merge it. And if not, what might need to be addressed first. If things need to be addressed, offer to address them yourself.
|
Caleb Porzio