[MRG] document good first issue and help wanted labels #9950
Conversation
|
Do you think that it would be good to add something to code review guidelines? In the sense that people who wants to start reviewing PRs could start for those labeled as |
|
Hmmm not entirely convinced. It feels like the skills required to review a PR (even a simple one) are significantly higher than to tackle a "good first issue". |
|
I think what you should say is "If this is not your first contribution, you should let someone else take it." |
plus rewording
Done. |
| you have already contributed to scikit-learn look at | ||
| [Easy issues](https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/labels/Easy) | ||
| instead. Resolving these issues allow you to start contributing to the project | ||
| without much prior knowledge. Your assistance in this area will be greatly |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So "good first issue" are the "training wheel" ones, and "easy issues" are something were we need help? I'm not sure what a good thing to communicate is, but I feel right now, easy issues often end up more work to review than doing it ourselves. Though they are important in creating a funnel.
Fix #9652.
At the moment it is not really clear what the difference between "good first issue" and "Easy" is. I try to word the documentation in a way that makes "good first issue" the first point of entry for new contributors.
Note: at the moment there is no issues with the "good first issue" tag. I am hoping that this will get populated with time.