jon-wei commented on a change in pull request #7206: Add the pull-request template URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/7206#discussion_r266680313
########## File path: .github/pull_request_template.md ########## @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Fixes #XXXX. + +(Replace XXXX with the id of the issue fixed in this PR. Remove this line if there is no corresponding +issue. Don't reference the issue in the title of this pull-request.) + +Add tags to your PR if you are a committer (only committers have the right to add tags). Add [Design Review] tag +if this PR should better be reviewed by at least two people. +Don't forget to add the following tags (if applicable): [Incompatible], [Release Notes], [Compatibility], [Security], +[Development Blocker]. Add at least one [Area - ] tag, consider creating a new one if none of the existing [Area - ] +tags is applicable. + +### Description + +Describe the goal of this PR, what problem are you fixing. If there is a corresponding issue (referenced above), it's +not necessary to repeat the description here, however, you may choose to keep one summary sentence. + +Describe your patch: what did you change in code? How did you fix the problem? + +If there are several relatively logically separate changes in this PR, list them. For example: + - Fixed the bug ... + - Renamed the class ... + - Added a forbidden-apis entry ... + +Some of the aspects mentioned above may be omitted for simple and small PRs. + +### Design + +Please describe any design decisions made, including: + - Choice of algorithms + - Behavioral aspects. What configuration values are acceptable? How are corner cases and error conditions handled, such + as when insufficient resources are available? + - Class organization and design (how the logic is split between classes, inheritance, composition, design patterns) + - Method organization and design (how the logic is split between methods, parameters and return types) + - Naming (class, method, API, configuration, HTTP endpoint, names of emitted metrics) + +In addition, describe _at least one_ alternative design (or mention alternative name) for every design (or naming) Review comment: Always considering alternative designs is a good ideal, but in practice, If we had a hard requirement for the "describe alternatives" rule, I would expect many PRs to have empty fluff in that section or people just describing some awful alternative implementation to check off the requirement, I expect it would often not bring any real value if forced. If the PR submitter shares in the spirit behind this rule, they would likely do if it's optional. If they don't, they'll ignore it or game the system even if it's a requirement. If I saw an otherwise good PR that lacked this section, I would personally not be willing to reject it on that basis alone. So I would agree with making this optional. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@druid.apache.org
