codidact
Moderator Tool Improvements
Would it be practical to split this pull request into smaller changes to allow some to be deployed and get real world feedback?
I'm wondering because of the issues that mention this pull request. Do they depend on the whole change or just smaller parts of it that might not need to wait for the rest?
@ArtOfCode- re the previous comment: do you think it would be easier to subdivide this PR or finish it? (Asking because you reviewed it in the past, so you have better insights than most other people.)
Probably easier to finish it - would take unnecessary work to split it up. Shouldn't need much more work, though - addressing comments and requests and fixing the conflicts. @trichoplax if you find yourself looking for any more intro to Ruby, this might be doable for you.
@ArtOfCode- Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to start by trying to rebase ~master~ develop onto this branch (in the safety of my own fork), unless anyone tells me that's a bad idea (this will be my first rebase).
I've now rebased develop onto my fork's version of this branch, and resolved the conflicts. I won't push the changes back to this branch since I don't have write access so wouldn't be able to continue it here anyway. Instead I'll try to resolve the review comments shown here, but on my fork's version of this branch, and then probably make a new pull request for further review unless someone knows a better way.
Instead I'll try to resolve the review comments shown here, but on my fork's version of this branch, and then probably make a new pull request for further review unless someone knows a better way.
Sounds good to me. We had another PR recently where someone started it and someone else finished, and "new branch + new PR" is what happened there too. You can see comments here and address them there and it should work.
Congrats on the rebase. I had no idea how bad the conflicts might be.
Thank you for working on this!
@cellio Thanks! I'll proceed as planned then.
As for the conflicts, there were fewer than I expected. My plan for today was just to make a start on them, but they turned out to be few and fairly easy to resolve. It'll need a careful review from someone to make sure I haven't misinterpreted anything though.
After you've addressed the outstanding comments here, we can deploy your branch to the dev server for testing in parallel with code review. That way those of us who aren't qualified to evaluate the code changes can bang on the server and make sure it behaves the way we expect.
I've addressed all but the final review comment from this pull request (and added a note about that one as a reminder on the new pull request #1009). I've also changed a few minor things I noticed, and added a few more review comments on the new pull request with questions that occurred to me that I haven't been able to resolve yet.
I'd appreciate anyone's insights over on that pull request.
@luap42 I noticed you have made some commits to the branch that this pull request was based on, so I wanted to make sure you're up to date on what's happened to this pull request, and why it is currently closed:
- I picked this up and made some changes based on review comments on this pull request, but I couldn't commit the changes in this repo due to lack of access, so I made them in a fork, and opened a new pull request #1009.
- This raised some further questions and more work is required, which I've allowed myself to be distracted from by other things for the last few months.
- In that time some conflicts have arisen that need to be resolved. I expect
developneeds to be rebased onto this branch again - if I'd realised which branch you were rebasing onto earlier today I would have mentioned this then to save you any further work.
I don't know how much these two branches have now diverged and whether it's worth trying to combine them or better to abandon one or other. I just wanted to write something quickly to let you know before any further work happens in case it affects what you decide to do.
@trichoplax thanks for the heads up, today I only did three things on this branch:
- merge your changes into it
- add ".ruby-version" to the gitignore because it is automatically created by rbenv and should not be committed (unless we choose to commit it, which should be an intentional decision not an "oops I just did git add -a")
- merge develop into it
So divergence shouldn't be too much an issue.
I am looking into how much I'll be able to spend some time on this in the near future. I've seen the other MR and will check the reviews there later. Feel free to ping me on Discord for more coordination.
Reopening now that I have write access to this repository and don't need to be working from a fork. I will address any outstanding comments from #1009 here.
Where does this work stand? I see merge conflicts and a comment saying there's one outstanding issue though I'm not sure which. I resolved some conversations that ended in "I did this" to try to make this a little easier to follow. It feels like we're 99% there -- what's the remaining 1%?
When this merges and is deployed, we will be able to answer meta:289200 (user requesting private discussion with mods) by directing people to raise a flag requesting a conversation. If moderators agree, they can then initiate the private thread in the usual way, since it needn't be tied to a warning. That should meet the need in this meta request.
@cellio I've just realised I didn't reply here in GitHub. Maybe I mixed this up with my reply in Discord around the same time.
I haven't found much time to look at this the last month or so. I'm currently putting some time into rebasing onto the develop branch, which is resulting in a lot of merge conflicts. This seems like a good sign from a broader perspective (it shows that lots of people have merged other branches since I last worked on this).
@cellio I've just realised I didn't reply here in GitHub.
My comment came from meta triage -- linking another meta question that can be updated when this lands. I wasn't trying to push you -- but I'm excited to hear you're working on the rebase, as I'd love to see us get this over the finish line somehow.