-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 557
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
add PR template #495
add PR template #495
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.
thanks for taking care of this @mr-tz!
.github/pull_request_template.md
Outdated
|
||
### Checklist | ||
|
||
- [ ] I have updated the [CHANGELOG.md](/CHANGELOG.md) |
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.
Should we set up the GitHub action and a templete in the CHANGELOG to ensure this is done before adding it here? I was thinking about setting this up together with the next release to be able to start with a empty CHANGELOG.
In #457 I suggested to use a label if no CHANGELOG changes are needed. But contributors don't have permissions for that. Maybe a section like the one for the tests would be better, so that we can add the label if no changes are needed. Something like:
### Changelog
- [ ] I have updated the [CHANGELOG.md](/CHANGELOG.md)
- [ ] The [CHANGELOG.md](/CHANGELOG.md) doesn't need to be updated (changelog linter will fail until a maintainer adds the `no changelog` label)
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.
Should we set up the GitHub action and a templete in the CHANGELOG to ensure this is done before adding it here?
-
Adding the template is a good idea, I think the Action is optional for now.
-
Wouldn't any change require a respective CHANGELOG entry? Let's try to keep it simple.
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.
Wouldn't any change require a respective CHANGELOG entry? Let's try to keep it simple.
We could give it a try. 🤔
|
||
### Type of change | ||
|
||
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) |
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.
Checklists in PR sound like a good idea, but my experience is that in practice they are just removed because they are annoying to fill. I am up to give it a try, but I am not sure if we need a checklist for the type of change if soon it is expected that the author updates the changelog (which has this information).
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.
I like this part to get a quick overview of what the PR provides. I've removed the actual Checklist entry.
in support of #457