Perhaps adding a count tag to the PR titles would be useful for such cases? e.g.: GH-<issue id>: [<PR #>/<expected total # of PRs if known>]<other tags> <title text>
Rok On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 10:37 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't have a specific opinion on this, but as a data point, this > already happens from time to time (though rarely). > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > Le 11/09/2024 à 17:32, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit : > > Hi all, > > > > This is a discussion specifically for the GitHub development workflow > > we use in the monorepo, i.e. https://github.com/apache/arrow/ > > > > We have the unwritten(?) (but implicitly implied by our tooling) rule > > that we always should have one issue for one PR to close that issue. > > I would like to discuss expanding that to explicitly allow making > > multiple PRs that link to the same issue. > > > > For clarity, I don't want to discuss the usefulness of actually having > > an issue linked to a PR (we could discuss expanding the scope of our > > "minor" PRs, but that's for a separate discussion I would say). > > But in practice, you regularly want to split up the work related to > > the same topic into multiple PRs (to have smaller PRs, to ease > > reviewing, etc). At the moment, to follow our workflow, that requires > > creating a bunch of dummy child issues just to have a unique issue > > number to reference in each PR. While in practice they could all > > reference the same issue number. This keeps the relevant information > > more centralized in that one issue, and avoids the noise of a flood of > > dummy issues in our issue list. > > > > Practical example: currently I am planning to work on adding type > > annotations to the pyarrow library. I will probably split up that work > > in a PR per module, but they can all reference a single parent issue > > instead of also creating an issue about "adding type annotations in > > module xxx" for each PR. > > > > --- > > > > I think this is perfectly possible with our current tooling, if we > > want, with the following notes: > > > > - The current merge script will ask you to update (i.e. close) the > > issue, and at that point if you know this is a parent issue you should > > say "no" (or afterwards reopen the issue). > > (we could also discuss whether we actually need this merge script, but > > let's keep that for another thread? ;)) > > > > - The release notes generation currently relies on listing issues, and > > not PRs. That means if you want the issue listed, it should be closed > > (and tagged with that milestone) by the time of the release (if it is > > ungoing work, you can at that point create a new issue for all PRs > > going into the next release). > > > > - If a PR needs to be backported, that also depends on its connection > > to and the milestone of the issue. Thus, for PRs that need to be > > backported, you should always open a unique issue and it should not > > reference an issue tracking multiple PRs. > > > > Thoughts? Concerns with allowing this? > > > > Best, > > Joris >
