Skip to content
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reenables new issues creation on GitHub #4954

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 30, 2019

Conversation

@andreslucena
Copy link
Member

commented Mar 11, 2019

馃帺 What? Why?

Partially reenable issues on GitHub:

  • bug reporting on GitHub
  • new feature request and discussion on MetaDecidim

This decision comes by a debate on MetaDecidim itself.

Full discussion regarding this change:
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/supportforum/f/705/proposals/14243

馃搶 Related Issues

Thanks to @ahukkanen for the feedback. Please review and chime in :)

Related with #4810 - we partially reenable issues on GitHub:

* bug reporting on GitHub
* new feature request and discussion on MetaDecidim

This decision comes by a debate on MetaDecidim itself.

Full discussion regarding this change:
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/supportforum/f/705/proposals/14243
@ahukkanen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 11, 2019

Regarding the discussion at Metadecidim, I would also like to suggest adding a note to duplicate the issue description at Metadecidim and linking it to that as was agreed in the discussion.

I would suggest to copy only the "Describe the bug" section and leave all the further details at GitHub.

@mrcasals

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 13, 2019

@andreslucena can you take care of @ahukkanen's comments please?

@mrcasals

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 27, 2019

@andreslucena can you check this please? 馃檹

@carolromero

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 28, 2019

Hi @mrcasals what's left to be done here? @ahukkanen We already have established the way to link the bugs here and in metadecidim, is that what you are asking for? Can we reenable this? Thanks!

@carolromero

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 28, 2019

@ahukkanen, just for you to know, we always add the metadecidim link in Additional context (I added this in the explanatory description)

@ahukkanen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 28, 2019

@carolromero What I meant is that in the template it may not currently be clear that you have to create the issue at Metadecidim when creating it at GitHub. This was at least my understanding from the discussion at Metadecidim.

From the "additional context" I would probably understand that in case there happens to be a Metadecidim issue, you can link it there. It does not clearly indicate that you have to create one.

@andreslucena

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 8, 2019

Hi @ahukkanen
The proposal now says:

Additional context Add any other context about the problem here. For instance, add Metadecidim link.

I think it should say:

Additional context Add any other context about the problem here. For instance, optionally add Metadecidim link.

The idea is that it's not mandatory, to not discourage the bug reporting (as consensus on MetaDecidim, "the process of coming to Metadecidim (is) an unnecessary overhead to bug reporting"). So I'll add this so we can merge. Ok?

@ahukkanen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 8, 2019

@andreslucena

In the comments section of the Metadecidim's proposal this was agreed:

Carol Romero @Carol Feb 26

[...]

So, here's a proposal:

  • For feature requests: we only use Metadecidim.
  • For bug reports: non-developers use Metadecidim, devs use Github. BUT the developers enter Metadecidim to discuss/answer the bugs that are created there and, if applicable, create themselves the issue in Github. In this way, from the Product team we don't die either. 馃槄

[...]

Below that thread you can see three comments agreeing that this is acceptable solution.

@carolromero

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 11, 2019

Okay, let's try to unlock this.

The agreement to report bugs, or at least my proposal was:

  • The developers that by contract have to give support on bug fixing (currently @decidim/lot-core @decidim/lot-mods and @decidim/lot-px), go to Metadecidim to comment the bugs reported by the participants (non-developers) - we, @decidim/product, ping them-, and if it applies (meaning it is confirmed that they are bugs), they create themselves the analog issue in github and in "Additional context" they link the Metadecidim bug.
  • Rest of devs are not required to enter the bug in Metadecidim and can report directly to Github. This is the case of @ahukkanen and others.

For not adding more noise to the bug reporting by external developers, I think that the proposal as it is right now it's OK by me and reflects the consensus.

Do we have an agreement?

@mrcasals

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 11, 2019

PR #5081 is related to this discussion.

@mrcasals mrcasals referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2019
@andreslucena

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 25, 2019

Reviewed it all with @carolromero
This can be merged already

@andreslucena andreslucena requested a review from decidim/lot-core Apr 29, 2019
@oriolgual oriolgual merged commit a8a00ea into master Apr 30, 2019
29 checks passed
29 checks passed
ci/circleci: accountability Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: admin Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: api Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: assemblies Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: blogs Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: budgets Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: build_design_app Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: build_test_app Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: comments Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: conferences Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: consultations Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: core Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: debates Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: forms Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: generators Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: initiatives Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: main Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: meetings Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: pages Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: participatory_processes Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: proposals Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: sortitions Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: surveys Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: system Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: upload-coverage Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
ci/circleci: verifications Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
codeclimate All good!
Details
codeclimate/diff-coverage 100% (80% threshold)
Details
codeclimate/total-coverage 98% (0.0% change)
Details
@oriolgual oriolgual deleted the reenable_issue_creation branch Apr 30, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can鈥檛 perform that action at this time.