Workflow...

[tomchristie]

I'd like to make sure that our workflow on this project and httpx is really clearly defined...

• Start with discussions.
• Escalate to an issue if there's a consensus on doing so.
• Raise a pull request to resolve the issue.

This'll help keep things nice and clean and ensure that issues & PRs reflect accepted-actionable-work or work-in-progress.

[karpetrosyan]

Can we define workflow more precisely? There are some questions for which I do not have clear answers.

• How to recognize when it is time to open the issue from discussion?
• Is it always necessary? What if there is a bug that does not necessitate discussion? (Can we skip discussion -> issue ?)
• Is it necessary to discuss/issue a very minor bug that we can fix with a single line? Isn't it possible to just open a pull request and fix it? (Can we skip discussion -> issue and issue -> pull request and just open the pull request)
• Is it always acceptable to open a pull request when an issue exists, or do we need to discuss pull requests in some cases?

[tomchristie]

I think the actionable out of this is that we ought to add issue templates and pull request templates to this project.

We currently have those for httpx. Copying the same style to this project seems reasonable.

Would anyone like to open an issue so we can track that, and get them added in?

---

How to recognise [...]

At a minimum a discussion needs a project maintainer to have escalated it.

Is it always necessary [...]

For the sake of keeping the issue space / PR space clean I think it's a worthwhile constraint.

A very minor bug [...]

Typos in the documentation I could see being okay for drive-by PRs? Changes in code behaviour or typing, nah.

Open a pull request when an issue exists.

Sure.