+1. Also, I think committers should act as role models in this regard, and ensure that our own code changes have sufficient details in the PR.
Since I proposed the PR template, I also want to re-state that any suggestions to improving the PR template are welcome. By being open about it, we can build consensus through discussions, and then act accordingly. Thanks. -sz On 2018-01-14 12:21, Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com> wrote: > While this email thread had 3 proposals earlier and most comments were on > Jira Vs Github issues, I want to bring attention to and request all > committers to NOT merge a code change unless the PR title and description > has sufficient details as required in the PR template. > > Both the PR title and the description are useful for Apache MXNet users in > understanding the code changes in a release from the Release Notes, > especially when a user has a problem and wants to know if a particular > release may fix the problem or not. > > This email is based on feedback from the Release retrospective checklist > documented here (prepared after the MXNet 1.0 Release): > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Retrospective+for+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0.0 > > Any comments or suggestion on the above Release retrospective are most > welcome. > > Bhavin Thaker. > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Stephen Bull <sb7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As a complete noob here and someone without a JIRA account, it seems I can > > at least view JIRA issues (so a plus for regular users when it comes to > > release notes). And when it comes time to start contributing, I don't see > > having to create a JIRA account to be a big deal, especially if the > > associated overhead between JIRA and PRs is fairly minimal. It seems there > > are many benefits given the replies so far. > > > > Cheers, > > Stephen > > > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 11:28 Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +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 > > > > > > > > > >
