Skip to content

List the pull-request parameter the parity table does not carry (#55) #156

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
iderex merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2026
Merged

List the pull-request parameter the parity table does not carry (#55) #156

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions docs/quality-parity.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -141,9 +141,15 @@ requires it to stay empty, so nothing here adds a second rule about it.
### The pull-request rule, parameter by parameter

Every parameter the third command prints, with the target's value beside it. On
2026-08-10 all but the first held the same value on both boards. A setting left
at its default and a setting chosen deliberately look identical afterwards,
which is why every row carries a reason and not only a verdict.
2026-08-10 all but the first held the same value on both boards, and that is
still the reading on 2026-08-21. A setting left at its default and a setting
chosen deliberately look identical afterwards, which is why every row carries a
reason and not only a verdict.

The table listed eight rows and the command prints nine names. Which of the two
that is, a parameter the platform started printing after the table was written
or a row the walk missed on the day, is not readable from here, and the last row
below is the one that was absent either way.

| Parameter | Here | Target | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
Expand All @@ -155,6 +161,7 @@ which is why every row carries a reason and not only a verdict.
| `require_code_owner_review` | `false` | `false` | Kept. There is no `CODEOWNERS` file in this tree, so requiring a code-owner review here would require an approval nothing can name. |
| `dismissal_restriction` | `{"allowed_actors":[],"enabled":false}` | The same | Kept. It restricts who may dismiss a review, and there is no required review to dismiss. |
| `required_reviewers` | `[]` | `[]` | Kept, for the reason in the row above. |
| `require_extra_approval_for_unattributed_changes` | `true` | `true` | Kept, and it is the row to read carefully. The four rows above turn on a review being required, and this one is written to ask for an approval where a change carries commits the pull request's author is not credited with, so it is the only parameter here that could ask for one at a count of zero. Whether it does is a statement about the platform and no command in this walk answers it, so nothing is claimed. It has never been observed to hold a merge on this board. |

### Why the merge methods are not a style preference

Expand Down
Loading