Just because it can be used as a hammer doesn't mean it will be used as a hammer. We need to do a better job of providing good tests and documentation with our code, and I think this list is a reminder of that. There are times where a PR is justified in not having tests (like documentation) or docs (like a bug fix) and, in those cases, you can simply not check the check box. Just because we don't like to do something doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
>> "It's already too difficult to get anything merged" I agree, and this is the exact problem this PR template is attempting to address. Often times we get PRs with hundreds of lines of code that have a poor description, no tests, and no documentation. It is hard to expect the community to jump right in, "trust the developer", and merge something without at least understanding what the PR does and what problem it is trying to solve. This template is meant to help us merge PRs more efficiently. >> "We need to be less hostile to new people" That is a very serious claim, do you have a specific example? We should be welcoming to all new contributors and, in my experience, we have. If you have a specific example I would love to see it so that I can work with the rest of the PMC to ensure it doesn't happen again. In my opinion, this template is the balance between getting things done and doing things the right way. PR templates are pretty standard in the open source community -- as are requiring tests and documentation for that matter -- and I would love to see this adopted sooner rather than later. In my opinion this makes our project better. Thanks, Dave On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:18 AM Robert Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > > #### What is the best way to verify this PR? > > +1 > > > #### Check any that apply > > > > - [ ] This PR does *NOT* fix a serious security flaw. Read more: [ > www.apache.org/security](http://www.apache.org/security/) > <http://www.apache.org/security%5D(http://www.apache.org/security/)> > <http://www.apache.org/security%5D(http://www.apache.org/security/)> > > - [ ] This PR includes tests > > - [ ] This PR includes documentation updates > > - [ ] This PR includes an update to CHANGELOG.md > > -1 > > Yes , those are all good things. But in practice, that list will be used as > a hammer to beat people over the head, and refuse to merge PRs without > complete tests and docs. > > It's already too difficult to get anything merged, and our contributing > pages are already too hostile. We need to be less hostile to new people, > and make PRs less difficult to merge, not more. > > Yes, all those things are great, complete tests and docs would be great, > but that has to be balanced with getting things done, and being welcoming > to new people. > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > thanks dave. i'll add that to the PR. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:44 AM, David Neuman <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected] > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > 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 < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> +1 on keeping it short and to the point... > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Mitchell < > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >> 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 < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> 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 < > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > 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 < > > > > > >> >>> [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > 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 < > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > 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 < > > > > > >> >>> > [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> 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 > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> <mailto: > > > > > >> >>> > >>> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > From: Dewayne Richardson <[email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" > < > > > > > >> >>> > >>> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:15 AM > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" < > > > > > >> >>> > >>> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > 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 > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > thanks dave. i'll add that to the PR. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:44 AM, David Neuman <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected] > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > 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 < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> +1 on keeping it short and to the point... > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Jeremy Mitchell < > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >> 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 < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> 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 < > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > 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 < > > > > > >> >>> [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> > > 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 < > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > 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 < > > > > > >> >>> > [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> 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 > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >> >>> <mailto: > > > > > >> >>> > >>> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > From: Dewayne Richardson <[email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" > < > > > > > >> >>> > >>> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:15 AM > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > To: "[email protected]" < > > > > > >> >>> > >>> [email protected]> > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > 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 > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
