-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 111
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
[Tidy] Make changelog not required for docs changes and tidy licence files #480
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yay! Thanks for this. I won't approve it as I don't know anything about the code but 👍 from me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
GHA changes look good. 🎉
Is this what you were referring to in standup @petar-qb?
Yes, exactly. Thanks for adjusting that. 👍
Description
At the moment, any PR that touches files inside
vizro-core
orvizro-ai
requires a new changelog fragment there. This is annoying for people who just want to make quick and easy docs changes (which never need a changelog entry) and also awkward with our current CODEOWNERS setup.I've changed the logic so that if no file outside
docs
has been touched then the changelog fragment shouldn't be required any more.I haven't been able to test this out fully, so there's definitely a chance my GHA/Bash scripting is slightly wrong, but we'll find out as soon as we make PRs. @stichbury this should hopefully make your life a bit easier since it means you don't need to run
hatch run changelog:add
any more and if someone else modifies only docs then your approval should be all that's needed to satisfy the CODEOWNERS requirement.Also made all licence files .txt format (previously one was .md but it actually wasn't written in .md) and copied the text straight off https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt. It's the same text as before, just slightly different indentation. Is this what you were referring to in standup @petar-qb?
Notice
I acknowledge and agree that, by checking this box and clicking "Submit Pull Request":