+1 for mandatory description field. I can see the pros and cons of having a template. On one hand it helps guide users with what content is important to add to the description. On the other hand, it can be left unmodified. I guess even a mandatory jira description field with no template has a similar problem though, because sometimes people just re-type the title of the Jira into the description.
Ethan On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:29 AM Wei-Chiu Chuang <weic...@apache.org> wrote: > I mean, especially for improvements and new features, what is changed for > users. > > For example, adding a new API, adding a new metric, and new configuration > properties. > > not sure what is the right place to put it, and I understand it's a burden > for developers, but it is so important. I'd like to ask all of us to start > thinking like a user: can someone understand this change without looking at > the source code? > > I'd love to see a new convention born out of this discussion. It would be > too much to ask everyone to follow it voluntarily, so some enforcement in > the jira itself would be needed. > > It's wee hours here so sorry if I'm not making sense. > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 10:57 PM Attila Doroszlai <adorosz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > We can file an INFRA ticket to require a description field when filing > a > > > jira issue. If no one objects I can open an INFRA jira. > > > > +1 for mandatory description. > > > > > I'd actually want to go one step further and to have a pre-filled > > template > > > > -1 for pre-filled template. It defeats the purpose of making the > > field mandatory. Some folks will create issues without editing the > > template. We see this for PRs, too. > > > > -Attila > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > > > > >
