+1 Re: Ali, I believe in many open source projects, issues are both for users reporting problems/bugs, and propose enhancements. Discussion is a new thing to me and I'm not very familiar with how people are adopting it, before discussions exist, I think people also use issues for discussion purposes.
Regarding this proposal, PR describes a specific change, issues/discussions describes the original bug or enhancement proposals. Also it's quite common to have a single issue linking with multiple PRs if a work is complex and needs to be broken down into smaller PRs. I'm fine with soft CI checks, hard CI checks is a bit too much to me right now. Also I'm fine with "minor fixes" to be a bit larger than what's described right in the proposal, I would add things like minor bug fixes or minor code cleanups as well. On 2026/03/10 21:42:26 Yicong Huang wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on adopting the following contribution policy > for Apache Texera: > > Proposal > > For pull requests that are not minor, contributors should include at least > one related GitHub Issue or GitHub Discussion reference in the PR description. > > Examples of acceptable references include: > > • Closes/Fixes/Resolves #1234 > • Related to #1234 > • Discussion #1234 > > The goal is to make sure each non-minor code change is connected to its > original problem statement, motivation, or prior discussion context. > > Rationale > > Today, many PRs do not properly fill in the “Any related issues, > documentation, discussions?” section in the PR template, and some PRs do not > link any issue or discussion at all. This makes review and long-term > maintenance harder. As discussed in #4246, issue/discussion linkage improves > traceability, preserves decision context, and helps contributors and > reviewers understand why a change exists. It also makes it easier to track > follow-up work, revisions, and related PRs over time. > > Scope / exception > > Minor PRs can be exempt, such as: > > • typo fixes > • comment-only changes > • very small non-functional cleanup > > One way to handle this is to explicitly mark such PRs as minor. > > What this vote is about > > If this vote passes, we will treat issue/discussion linkage as the expected > policy for non-minor PRs, and we can follow up with practical enforcement > details in the PR template and/or CI checks. If the vote does not pass, we > will continue to treat those information as optional fields. > > Please vote: > > • +1: support adopting this policy > • 0: no strong opinion > • -1: do not support adopting this policy, preferably with explanation > > > This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. > > > Thanks, > Yicong Huang > [email protected] > >
