If we distinguish the simple jira where the title is enough (I'm thinking about the dependency updates where the title is enough, but these Jiras are good for the tracking), I generally agree.
+1 to have some guidelines in the contributor guide (in source repo and/or website) and also in PR template on github. Regards JB On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:25 PM Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As I brought up in the Artemis 2.21.0 vote thread I have noticed a pattern > of Jiras that have almost no information in them which makes it very > difficult to follow along with bug fixes and new features. This made > reviewing the current release more difficult. Some issues are trivial but > most issues should have a good description to document the change. > > I am proposing that going forward we come up with a template/guide or > checklist of some sort for Jiras for people to follow, kind of like coding > standards or a checklist for reviewing pull requests. > > It doesn't have to be super strict, but some guidelines might be nice. Off > the top of my head here are a few things: > > New Features: > 1) What's the motivation of the feature? Why is it needed? > 2) A high level description on the plan to implement the feature > 2) Maybe some details on how testing will be done > > Bug Fixes: > 1) How was the issue discovered? > 2) How to reproduce and what versions are affected? > 3) whats the proposed fix? > > My main motivation here is Jiras but we could also have guidelines for > commit messages if we want too. > > Thoughts?
