gains author Bolivar

[jibarozzo]

No description provided.

[DrEntropy]

LGTM. I need to get on this myself. as soon as I contribute something that is ;)

[jibarozzo]

Not sure why checks fail.

[jdhoffa]

Not sure why checks fail.

FYI, checks failed because the DESCRIPTION file was improperly formatted (handled in #27).
In general, we should not get in the habit of approving/ merging PRs to main when checks fail 😊

Another note, the DESCRIPTION file is super finicky. I always use usethis functions (e.g. usethis::use_author) to add info to it, as it automatically handles formatting.

[jibarozzo]

Agreed. I didn't use that function. 😐

[DrEntropy]

Sorry about the premature approval.

[DrEntropy]

Also surprised merging wasn't blocked ?

[jibarozzo]

It's my bad for not thinking more and juast merging. :/

[jdhoffa]

No worries at all! We never had any actual discussion around GH strategy, GH actions, anything like that, so most of the practices in this repo are mainly just organically intuited haha.

I think in general if a single action is failing and there's some exploration/ determination that it is unrelated to the PR, then it's ok to merge. But when all checks fail, it's usually an indication that something is broken by that PR.

Also surprised merging wasn't blocked ?

Re: I purposefully had not turned on "require status checks to pass before merging" on the branch protections. This is because, in my experience, there are often cases where GH actions fail and the failures are unrelated to the PR (maybe they are related to a change in the GH runner system itself, etc.). In general, I tried to opt for the more lenient/ less restrictive approach so people don't feel discouraged from contributing, but happy to change that depending on what folks prefer!