Thanks for restarting this discussion. In general I am pro resolving the 1:1 relation between PRs and issues. At the moment I don't have a firm view on what should replace it as a source of truth for changelogs etc.
Though I am leaning towards using PRs/commits for that with issues just being used as an organizational aid to track larger changes, like adding type hints to pyarrow. I think we can likely make generating the changelog and versions for components, as discussed before, easier by improving our commit messages, but this is also best kept for another thread :) As a side note sub-issue are now fully supported by Github [1]. And +1 on re-evaluating the need for the merge script as a follow up to this :D [1]: https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/using-issues/adding-sub-issues Am Di., 21. Jan. 2025 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Bryce Mecum <bryceme...@gmail.com>: > > I think we should allow multiple PRs for any issue in order to reduce > friction for contributors. > > I remembered this thread while looking at the issue for Decimal32/64 > support [1] which I think is a good example of where filing separate > issues for every patch doesn't add value and adds friction. Some > patches associated with [1] were missed in the automatic changelog > generation for Arrow 19.0.0. > > Thanks for bringing this discussion up. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/43956 > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:32 AM Joris Van den Bossche > <jorisvandenboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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
