zlacker

[flagged]

>>rafram+(OP)
What kind of things would you like to hear? The default is you hear nothing. Most black boxes work this way. And you similarly have no say in the matter.

>>rafram+(OP)
Why? I don't appreciate comments that cast doubt on decent technical contributors without any substance to back it up. It's a cheap shot from anonymity.

>>BowBun+24
I'm not the parent but if you know you want to merge a PR "within a few seconds" then you're likely to be merging in bad changes.

If you had left it at know you want to reject a PR within a few seconds, that'd be fine.

Although with safety critical systems I'd probably want each contributor to have some experience in the field too.

>>8n4vid+W6
Sounds like you misunderstood. They didn't say they are merging PRs after a few seconds. Just that the difference between a good one and a bad is often obvious after a few seconds. Edit: typos

>>colinm+ab
Exactly, every PR starts with:

1. What’s the goal of this PR and how does it further our project’s goals?

2. Is this vaguely the correct implementation?

Evaluating those two takes a few seconds. Beyond that, yes it takes a while to review and merge even a few line diff.

>>colinm+ab
I'm not sure there are many ways to interpret "I know whether I want to merge a PR within a few seconds".

>>stavro+Gl
Yet I also agree with GP.

>>8n4vid+W6
"*WANT* to close or *WANT* to merge". Not WILL close or WILL merge.

You look at the PR and you know just by looking at it for a few seconds if it looks off or not.

Looks off -> "Want to close"

Write a polite response and close the issue.

Doesn't look off -> "Want to merge"

If we want to merge it, then of course you look at it more closely. Or label it and move on with the triage.