New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve GitHub templates (step 2) #45883

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: devel
from

Conversation

@dagwieers
Member

dagwieers commented Sep 20, 2018

This is a continuation of #44455. It includes the more controversial changes.

This PR includes:

  • NO NEED FOR FRUSTRATION CAPS IN TITLES!
  • Better headings/titles
  • No 'Summary' title for PRs (so commit information is placed correctly)
  • No 'Component name' section for PRs (modified files is clearer)
  • No 'Ansible version' section for PRs (but add a hint to ask for lowest version affected)

This PR would require some improvements to Ansibot.

Type of pull request

  • Feature

Additional information

This description shows what the change would look like.

Remarks ?

  • Is there still a reason to ask for the "Component name" when doing a PR ?
    • Is the list of modified files not the best indicator ?
    • @gundalow agrees, so gone is that section now...
  • I prefer level-2 headings (because it includes a wide line) but the font might be considered too big.
  • The removal of a SUMMARY title for pull-requests is definitely something to get used to.
    • It would have been nice if the PR template supported a placeholder for the commit message.
Improve GitHub templates (step 2)
This PR includes:
- (NO NEED FOR FRUSTRATION CAPS IN TITLES!)
- Better headings/titles
- No 'Summary' title for PRs (so commit information is placed correctly)

This PR would require some improvements to Ansibot.

 - Feature Pull Request

Github templates

v2.7

@dagwieers dagwieers requested review from webknjaz, gundalow and acozine Sep 20, 2018

@dagwieers dagwieers added this to In progress in Contributor Experience via automation Sep 20, 2018

@dagwieers

This comment was marked as outdated.

Member

dagwieers commented Sep 20, 2018

So this was the remaining stuff that was too controversial from #44455.

@jborean93 jborean93 removed the needs_triage label Sep 20, 2018

@webknjaz

LGTM, but probably needs verification that bot won't go mad :)

Contributor Experience automation moved this from In progress to Reviewer approved Sep 20, 2018

@webknjaz webknjaz requested review from samdoran, abadger and mkrizek Sep 20, 2018

@webknjaz

This comment has been minimized.

Member

webknjaz commented Sep 20, 2018

@mkrizek could you please check the parser in bot wrt this?

@dagwieers

This comment has been minimized.

Member

dagwieers commented Sep 20, 2018

I have no clue on how to test ansibot, but it is a given that ansibot will not like this.
Since we changed some of the strings it needs for labeling issues/PRs.

So before we continue and spend the effort on ansibot, we'd better be sure this is a desired change.

@gundalow gundalow added this to In progress in Contributor Experience Sep 25, 2018

@dagwieers dagwieers requested review from acozine and removed request for acozine Sep 26, 2018

@ryansb

ryansb approved these changes Sep 27, 2018

@ansibot ansibot added the stale_ci label Oct 6, 2018

@ansibot ansibot added the stale_review label Oct 6, 2018

@gundalow gundalow moved this from In progress to Next in Contributor Experience Nov 8, 2018

@gundalow gundalow moved this from Next to Medium in Contributor Experience Nov 8, 2018

@ansibot ansibot added needs_rebase and removed stale_review labels Nov 18, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment