`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: "dev@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org" < >>> > >>> dev@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org> >>> > >>> > Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:15 AM >>> > >>> > To: "dev@trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org" < >>> > >>> dev@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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >> >>
