The automated check is not to replaced the commiter task of reading the description of course, it is to automate the mundane tasks of responding a trivial "please describe your PR".
I'm not sure what you mean by checking the commit message, as there's no template for that. And as I said, let try to do this slowly and start with the PR description checking. Applying something similar to commits requires more careful thought on what to check. Requiring a paragraph for absolutely every commit to me feels like incredibly unnecessary. Sometimes a commit just does style fixes, corrects whitespace, etc. I think we should discuss this separately. Best, Matias On Thu, Sep 17, 2020, at 11:02, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > > That's why we have committers. It's been said, but I'll repeat: As > > committers, I know it's mundane, but we really need to make sure the commit > > and PR messages will be helpful to someone who looks at them in the future. > > But it would help the committer by at least assuring that there is > something in the three sections. And it will help to develop better > habits by the people who currently submit PRs with totally inadequate > description. > > Remember when the coding style checks were a big hurdle for us (around > last February). It felt like it was going to sink us and that we might > have to back off from those checks. But we stuck with it and now it is > not such a big issue. That is partly because more code now follows the > coding standard, but also because contributors are better informed and > have developed better habits because of the PR checks > > I think we can do the same for PR and commit comments. > > >
