bors merge as an alias to
bors merge=FOO as an alias to
bors merge p=123 as an alias to
bors r+ p=123,
bors merge=FOO p=123 as an alias to
bors r=FOO p=123, and
bors merge- as an alias to
Based on the discussion in a previous forum thread (https://forum.bors.tech/t/user-defined-aliases-for-bors-commands/371), multiple users are confused by the
bors r+ command.
Once you've set it up, instead of clicking the green "Merge Button", leave a comment like this on the pull request:
Equivalently, you can comment the following
The pull request, as well as any other pull requests that are reviewed around the same time, will be merged into a branch called "staging". Your CI tool will test it in there, and report the result back where Bors-NG can see it. If that result is "OK", master gets fast-forwarded to reach it.
The status can be seen in the Dashboard page, which also makes a good one-stop-shop to see pull requests that are waiting for review.
|bors r+||Run the test suite and push to master if it passes. Short for "reviewed: looks good."|
|bors merge|| Equivalent to |
|bors r=[list]||Same as r+, but the "reviewer" in the commit log will be recorded as the user(s) given as the argument.|
|bors merge=[list]|| Equivalent to |
|bors r-||Cancel an r+ or r=.|
|bors merge-|| Equivalent to |
|bors p=[priority]||Set the priority of the current pull request. Pull requests with different priority are never batched together. The pull request with the bigger priority number goes first.|
|bors r+ p=[priority]||Set the priority, run the test suite, and push to master (shorthand for doing p= and r+ one after the other).|
|bors merge p=[priority]|| Equivalent to |
It adds another command that we need to maintain.
It creates multiple ways of doing the same thing, which might lead to some confusion.
Rationale and alternatives
Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
- It allows for consistency across different projects that use Bors-NG.
What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
- We could allow unlimited customization of aliases in
bors.toml. But then this will lead to inconsistency across different projects that use Bors-NG and will become a real headache for people that are reviewers on multiple different projects.
What is the impact of not doing this?
- If we do nothing, then people will continue to be confused by the opaque
The prior art for adding aliases to Bors-NG is the following RFC: https://forum.bors.tech/t/allow-delegate-to-be-abbreviated-as-d/362
Hopefully we won't need to add any more aliases after this one.