Guidelines and Principles for PR review

[mihai-sysbio]

It would be nice to have guidelines in place about the PR review process, more on the lines of how to "run" a review, similar to the guide on how to contribute:

• start reading the top PR message and re-familiarize yourself with the issues that it references and aims to solve
• continue reading the PR discussions
• go through the code changes and make sure these make sense, and use a desktop diff if the online diff doesn't work
• always be appreciative and supportive
• if you have any suggestions, leave them as in-line comments so that they sit closer to the proposed code changes, and summarize these in the final review message
• make sure everything is okay with the GH actions
• who does the merging the reviewer or the author? my suggestion is to allow some days for the author to do this, if not then go ahead
• make sure the target issue is closed automatically, otherwise close it by hand
• check if new contributors should be added, either for the issue or the PR, and ask for their orcid
• if there are any new issues that came up during the discussion, make sure to report these

Any thoughts/ideas?

[haowang-bioinfo]

thanks for bring up this, which is good for long-term development and should be better formulated

[haowang-bioinfo]

Perhaps let's expand this discussion with some principles:

Principles for reviewers:

• Dedication to truth
• Practice independent and critical thinking
• Be open and inclusive, with growth mindset
• Avoid being perfect, focus on incorporating evidence-based changes
• Have contributed to Human-GEM with at least 2 successfully merged Pull Requests