+1 for better [1] PR Titles. As suggested by Madan and use by Spark, the current PR template seems to be ignored by folks and so we may want to simplify it to:
Q1. What changes were proposed in this pull request? Q2. How was this patch tested? +1 to either [2] Jira OR [3] PR labels. Bhavin Thaker. On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Markus Weimer <mar...@weimo.de> wrote: > Option 2 works for us over in REEF. We are a bit (too) religious about it > [0], but it creates really nice commit messages[1]. > > We require each commit message to start with a one line summary which names > the JIRA in brackets and describes the change, e.g. `[REEF-1234] Added > integration with mxnet`. The remainder of the commit message is valid > markdown, and they all end in a block which contains explicit references to > the JIRA and pull request: > > ``` > JIRA: > [REEF-1234](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/REEF-1234) > > Pull Request: > This closes #1234 > ``` > > The hope is that this structure will eventually proof useful in automated > analysis. Then again, we haven't done that ever :) > > Markus > > [0]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/REEF/Commit+Messages > [1]: https://github.com/apache/reef/commits/master >
