-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 129
Update ADR formats for consistency #3465
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
Conversation
|
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.
Pull Request Overview
This PR updates the format of the “status” fields in the ADR documents for consistency, following the referenced GitHub staff guidelines.
- Modified the status section in multiple ADR files by replacing “Accepted and Adopted” with separate, formatted lines for "Status" and "Implementation."
- Ensured consistent formatting across the ADR documentation.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/adr/0252-build-component-css-with-ruby-code.md | Reformatted status field to separate "Status" and "Implementation" lines. |
| docs/adr/0251-use-catalyst-for-client-side-behaviours.md | Reformatted status field to separate "Status" and "Implementation" lines. |
| docs/adr/0250-developing-and-publishing-clientside-behaviours.md | Reformatted status field to separate "Status" and "Implementation" lines. |
| docs/adr/0246-record-architecture-decisions.md | Reformatted status field to separate "Status" and "Implementation" lines. |
Authors: Please fill out this form carefully and completely.
Reviewers: By approving this Pull Request you are approving the code change, as well as its deployment and mitigation plans.
Please read this description carefully. If you feel there is anything unclear or missing, please ask for updates.
What are you trying to accomplish?
This PR makes the "status" fields in all ADRs consistent, as per https://github.com/github/primer/pull/5111/files (GitHub staff only)
Integration
No
Risk Assessment
What approach did you choose and why?
Modifies text to match preferred format
Anything you want to highlight for special attention from reviewers?
Check the diff for format consistency and typos
Merge checklist
Take a look at the What we look for in reviews section of the contributing guidelines for more information on how we review PRs.