thanks dave. i'll add that to the PR.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:44 AM, David Neuman <david.neuma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks good Jeremy. Only nit I would pick would be to add documentation to > your list of components. > > Thanks, > Dave > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 8:13 PM Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I've created a very simple PR template based on some input from this > email > > thread. The PR is found here: > > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/2673 > > > > My goal was 3-fold: > > > > 1. keep it simple > > 2. capture enough info to help the PR merger and increase the odds of a > PR > > getting merged in a timely fashion > > 3. provide a checklist or a reminder for the submitter > > > > Jeremy > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, some PRs contain many commits and even with good > commit > > > messages, it's may be hard to figure out what exactly all the commits > are > > > trying to accomplish. > > > > > > This is a solid point and it's part of the point I'm making. If you've > > > got a bunch of commits that aren't explained well, then squash them > > > and explain them well. > > > > > > > I can't tell you how many times I've had to read through commit > > messages > > > and/or code to try to figure out what a PR is trying to accomplish and > > how > > > to verify it. > > > > > > I totally agree. But putting the exposition exclusively in the PR > > > means that the reviewer can understand it (a good thing!), but it > > > leaves that information behind. It's quite difficult to find the PR in > > > which a particular changeset was merged (especially given our > > > cherry-picking strategy), so it's much better if we encourage people > > > to put that information in the commit itself. > > > > > > > "Perfect is the enemy of good". > > > > > > Sure, though I'm not sure we're quite there. It seems we both agree on > > > basically which information should be included, I just want some of it > > > in the commit message instead. > > > > > > > I'm just trying to save the reviewer/merger some time. > > > > > > Agreed. The purpose of the template is to make sure the PR opener > > > communicates information that will be most useful and time-saving to > > > the reviewer. Likewise, it should save the PR-opener time by a) saving > > > a few keystrokes and b) keeping them from having to come back and > > > answer questions about stuff they forgot to mention. > > > > > > What if it looked like this? > > > > > > *Describe your PR:* _(copy/paste from changeset comments is > encouraged!)_ > > > > > > *What's a good way to verify this PR?* > > > > > > *Check any that apply:* > > > > > > - [ ] This PR does *not* fix a serious security flaw. (Read more: > > > www.apache.org/security ) > > > - [ ] CHANGELOG.md is updated. > > > - [ ] Tests are complete. > > > - [ ] Docs are updated. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > I think we might be asking for information that would be better gotten > > > elsewhere, but I might have a minority opinion on that point. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > "Perfect is the enemy of good". The point here is to make the PR > > > > description good enough to work with, not perfect. I appreciate > what > > > > you're trying to get to, but from experience, it's not realistic. > > > > > > > > -dan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> `What effect should I expect to see from this change?` > > > >> > > > >> This is a perfect question, and one that absolutely needs to be > > > >> answered. But either > > > >> > > > >> a) it is answered already in the commit message; or > > > >> b) the commit message is insufficient and needs to be `git > -amend`ed. > > > >> > > > >> I definitely wouldn't want a PR that contained that information only > > > >> in the PR body, > > > >> and there's not a whole lot of value in asking them to re-type it. > The > > > >> "copy/paste" thing > > > >> at the top is already a bit of duplication anyway. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > followup: rather than > > > >> > `What is the best way to verify this PR? ` > > > >> > > > > >> > what about > > > >> > > > > >> > `What effect should I expect to see from this change?` > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> +1 on keeping it short and to the point... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Mitchell < > > > >> mitchell...@gmail.com> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >>> Chris, I really wanted the PR template to be less daunting and > > super > > > >> short > > > >> >>> and to the point. It's intention is to give a super quick > summary > > of > > > >> >>> what's > > > >> >>> included in this PR to help the merger... > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Example: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> #### What does this PR do? Is there a related Github issue? > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> "See Issue #1245" or "This PR cascade deletes all delivery > service > > > >> regexes > > > >> >>> when a delivery service is deleted" > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> #### What is the best way to verify this PR? <-- IMO this is > > really > > > >> >>> important for the merger so I know how to "test" or "verify" the > > > >> >>> functionality. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Hit the DELETE /api/1.3/deliveryservices/:id endpoint and ensure > > all > > > >> >>> entries in the deliveryservice_regex table are deleted for that > > > >> delivery > > > >> >>> service. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> #### Does your PR include any of the following? > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> - [ ] Tests > > > >> >>> - [ ] Documentation > > > >> >>> - [X] CHANGELOG.md entry > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> ^^ I wasn't trying to imply that those last things were > required. > > I > > > >> just > > > >> >>> wanted to provide a checklist that might be helpful for the > > > contributer > > > >> >>> and > > > >> >>> the merger. For example, I always for get to look for a > > CHANGELOG.md > > > >> >>> entry... > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Jeremy > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Chris Lemmons < > > alfic...@gmail.com> > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > If there's a relevant GitHub issue, that should be noted in > the > > > >> >>> > check-in comment, I think. Same for "what does it do?" I don't > > > >> usually > > > >> >>> > want to spell out steps for someone to verify my stuff because > > > those > > > >> >>> > are the steps that I took to verify it. The PR is so you can > see > > > the > > > >> >>> > things I didn't see. And the commit list will make the > presence > > of > > > >> >>> > tests, documentation, and a changelog entry really obvious. > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > Taking yours and reformatting a bit, what if we did something > > like > > > >> this? > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > ... > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *Describe your PR:* _(copy/paste from changeset comments is > > > >> >>> encouraged!)_ > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *Quick Checklist:* > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Each commit message tells you everything you need to > know > > > about > > > >> >>> > the change. (Squashing can help with this.) > > > >> >>> > - [ ] If applicable, the commit message mentions the > appropriate > > > >> issue > > > >> >>> > number. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] This PR does *not* fix a serious security flaw. (Read > > more: > > > >> >>> > www.apache.org/security ) > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Automatic code formatters (like gofmt) have been run. > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *Tests:* > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Are not necessary. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Would be helpful, but aren't in this PR. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Are present, but incomplete. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Are included. > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *Doc updates:* > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Are not necessary. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Would be helpful, but aren't in this PR. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Are present, but incomplete. > > > >> >>> > - [ ] Are included. > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *If there's no update to CHANGELOG.md, why not?* > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *Does this break backward compatibility?* > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > *Is there anyone specific that ought to take a look at this?* > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > ... > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > We want to be friendly to committers, while still getting good > > > >> >>> > information for checking PRs. I could be easily convinced that > > the > > > >> >>> > "Tests" or "Doc updates" sections in there are too long, but I > > > think > > > >> >>> > it should be clear that a potential committer can offer up > some > > > code > > > >> >>> > without hitting 100% on tests, docs, and such. > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Jeremy Mitchell < > > > >> mitchell...@gmail.com > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > How about something like this for a PR template? > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > #### What does this PR do? Is there a relevant Github issue? > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > #### What is the best way to verify this PR? > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > #### Does your PR include any of the following? > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > - [ ] Tests > > > >> >>> > > - [ ] Documentation > > > >> >>> > > - [ ] CHANGELOG.md entry > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Jeremy Mitchell < > > > >> >>> mitchell...@gmail.com > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > >> With an issue and/or pr template, we will have 6/6 items > > > checked: > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/ > community > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> I actually think PR templates would be quite helpful. As a > > > >> >>> > >> committer/merger, it would be nice to know what problem the > > PR > > > is > > > >> >>> > solving > > > >> >>> > >> and how to verify the functionality. A PR template could > also > > > help > > > >> >>> > >> contributors ensure that their PRs are complete. I.e. does > > > this PR > > > >> >>> > includes > > > >> >>> > >> tests, documentation, etc. > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> I'll take a stab at a couple of templates and run them by > the > > > >> group. > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> Jeremy > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Chris Lemmons < > > > >> alfic...@gmail.com> > > > >> >>> > wrote: > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >>> I'm +1 on Issue Templates, for sure. I don't know that PR > > > >> templates > > > >> >>> > >>> are quite as critical, but it might be nice to have a > > > reminder in > > > >> >>> > >>> there about verifying that the changelog is updated if > > > necessary > > > >> and > > > >> >>> > >>> documentation for new features is present. If the PR > > Template > > > >> >>> > >>> overwrites the default comment that you get from the > commit > > > >> body, it > > > >> >>> > >>> might be more annoying than valuable, though. > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > >> >>> > >>> I'm also +1 on hiding these particular files in a .github > > > >> directory. > > > >> >>> > >>> Unlike CONTRIBUTING and README, they don't provide all > that > > > much > > > >> >>> > >>> benefit for a new person looking for stuff to read. > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > >> >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Durfey, Ryan < > > > >> >>> > ryan_dur...@comcast.com> > > > >> >>> > >>> wrote: > > > >> >>> > >>> > Always +1 on standardization and consistency > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > I still want to circle back and setup project/kanbans > for > > > >> >>> organizing > > > >> >>> > >>> tickets in Github. > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Ryan Durfey M | 303-524-5099 > > > >> >>> > >>> > CDN Support (24x7): 866-405-2993 or > > cdn_supp...@comcast.com > > > >> >>> <mailto: > > > >> >>> > >>> cdn_supp...@comcast.com> > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > From: Dewayne Richardson <dewr...@gmail.com> > > > >> >>> > >>> > Reply-To: "d...@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org" < > > > >> >>> > >>> d...@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org> > > > >> >>> > >>> > Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:15 AM > > > >> >>> > >>> > To: "d...@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org" < > > > >> >>> > >>> d...@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org> > > > >> >>> > >>> > Subject: Github PR/Issues Format Templates > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > I was working through the go-swagger repo and found a > bug. > > > I > > > >> >>> > submitted > > > >> >>> > >>> a > > > >> >>> > >>> > new issue and found this interesting approach I think > the > > TC > > > >> >>> github > > > >> >>> > >>> should > > > >> >>> > >>> > adopt, "Issue and PR Templates". I think the main value > > > here > > > >> is > > > >> >>> > >>> > consistency in our PRs/Issues and user friendly prompts > to > > > say > > > >> >>> "these > > > >> >>> > >>> are > > > >> >>> > >>> > the data points we need to help you solve your issue". > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Working example: > > > >> >>> > >>> > https://github.com/go-swagger/go-swagger/issues/new > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Github Doc on how to implement templates: > > > >> >>> > >>> > https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request- > > > templates > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > If we think it's a good idea, then I'll respond with > some > > > >> examples > > > >> >>> > for > > > >> >>> > >>> > Issues and PR's that we can discuss. > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > -Dew > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > >
