In order to land, a Pull Request needs to be reviewed and approved by at least one Node.js Collaborator and pass a CI (Continuous Integration) test run.
After that, as long as there are no objections from other contributors, the Pull Request can be merged.
If you find your Pull Request waiting longer than you expect, see the notes about the waiting time.
When a collaborator lands your Pull Request, they will post a comment to the Pull Request page mentioning the commit(s) it landed as. GitHub often shows the Pull Request as at this point, but don't worry. If you look at the branch you raised your Pull Request against (probably), you should see a commit with your name on it. Congratulations and thanks for your contribution!
All Node.js contributors who choose to review and provide feedback on Pull Requests have a responsibility to both the project and the individual making the contribution. Reviews and feedback must be helpful, insightful, and geared towards improving the contribution as opposed to simply blocking it. If there are reasons why you feel the PR should not land, explain what those are. Do not expect to be able to block a Pull Request from advancing simply because you say "No" without giving an explanation. Be open to having your mind changed. Be open to working with the contributor to make the Pull Request better.
Reviews that are dismissive or disrespectful of the contributor or any other reviewers are strictly counter to the Code of Conduct.
When reviewing a Pull Request, the primary goals are for the codebase to improve and for the person submitting the request to succeed. Even if a Pull Request does not land, the submitters should come away from the experience feeling like their effort was not wasted or unappreciated. Every Pull Request from a new contributor is an opportunity to grow the community.
Do not overwhelm new contributors.
It is tempting to micro-optimize and make everything about relative performance, perfect grammar, or exact style matches. Do not succumb to that temptation.
Focus first on the most significant aspects of the change:
Does this change make sense for Node.js?
Does this change make Node.js better, even if only incrementally?
Are there clear bugs or larger scale issues that need attending to?
Is the commit message readable and correct? If it contains a breaking change is it clear enough?
When changes are necessary, request them, do not demand them, and do not assume that the submitter already knows how to add a test or run a benchmark.
Specific performance optimization techniques, coding styles and conventions change over time. The first impression you give to a new contributor never does.
Nits (requests for small changes that are not essential) are fine, but try to avoid stalling the Pull Request. Most nits can typically be fixed by the Node.js Collaborator landing the Pull Request but they can also be an opportunity for the contributor to learn a bit more about the project.
It is always good to clearly indicate nits when you comment: e.g. change to. But this is not blocking.
If your comments were addressed but were not folded automatically after new commits or if they proved to be mistaken, please, hide them with the appropriate reason to keep the conversation flow concise and relevant.
Be aware that how you communicate requests and reviews in your feedback can have a significant impact on the success of the Pull Request. Yes, we may land a particular change that makes Node.js better, but the individual might just not want to have anything to do with Node.js ever again. The goal is not just having good code.
There is a minimum waiting time which we try to respect for non-trivial changes, so that people who may have important input in such a distributed project are able to respond.
For non-trivial changes, Pull Requests must be left open for at least 48 hours during the week, and 72 hours on a weekend. In most cases, when the PR is relatively small and focused on a narrow set of changes, these periods provide more than enough time to adequately review. Sometimes changes take far longer to review, or need more specialized review from subject matter experts. When in doubt, do not rush.
Trivial changes, typically limited to small formatting changes or fixes to documentation, may be landed within the minimum 48 hour window.
If a Pull Request appears to be abandoned or stalled, it is polite to first check with the contributor to see if they intend to continue the work before checking if they would mind if you took it over (especially if it just has nits left). When doing so, it is courteous to give the original contributor credit for the work they started (either by preserving their name and email address in the commit log, or by using an : meta-data tag in the commit.
Any Node.js core Collaborator (any GitHub user with commit rights in the repository) is authorized to approve any other contributor's work. Collaborators are not permitted to approve their own Pull Requests.
Collaborators indicate that they have reviewed and approve of the changes in a Pull Request either by using GitHub's Approval Workflow, which is preferred, or by leaving an ("Looks Good To Me") comment.
When explicitly using the "Changes requested" component of the GitHub Approval Workflow, show empathy. That is, do not be rude or abrupt with your feedback and offer concrete suggestions for improvement, if possible. If you're not sure how a particular change can be improved, say so.
Most importantly, after leaving such requests, it is courteous to make yourself available later to check whether your comments have been addressed.
If you see that requested changes have been made, you can clear another collaborator's review.
Change requests that are vague, dismissive, or unconstructive may also be dismissed if requests for greater clarification go unanswered within a reasonable period of time.
If you do not believe that the Pull Request should land at all, use to indicate that you are considering some of your comments to block the PR from landing. When doing so, explain why you believe the Pull Request should not land along with an explanation of what may be an acceptable alternative course, if any.