0 I think linking related information is helpful for PRs that went through multiple discussion iterations, especially for new contributors to understand the reasoning behind certain decisions. But I also agree with Zuozhi that “minor fixes” should likely be a bit broader than what’s described here. Overall, I don't have a strong opinion on this.
Best, Shengquan Ni On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:37 PM Zuozhi Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > +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] > > > > >
