Anyway, it's a separate topic to discuss. If you want to discuss issue types and whether to label components, please start another thread.
Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月25日周四 13:12写道： > From current issue templates, we already sort issues into bug reports, > improvements, doc changes, flaky tests, and PIPs. They're types. [type] and > [component] described here are applied to commit messages, not for issues. > > For components, we may encourage contributors to try their best to sort > out related components, but it's generally hard to do. I report a bug, how > can I know which components are related? It is required I have to dig it > out? > > Best, > tison. > > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月25日周四 13:08写道： > >> > Agree with applying the same rules ( [type] [scope] summary) for >> writing issue titles. >> >> It cannot be guarded by check so I think it only increases contributors' >> overhead. >> >> Instead, we can try to find out some integration if we can use the GitHub >> issue forms dropdown widget to allow contributors to tag the issue. >> >> I don't know whether it's possible, but it's better than setting up title >> rules. I can foresee that it's seldomly followed. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> >> Liu Yu <li...@apache.org> 于2022年8月25日周四 12:59写道： >> >>> Thanks Max! >>> >>> Agree with applying the same rules ( [type] [scope] summary) for writing >>> issue titles. >>> >>> On 2022/08/25 02:48:51 Max Xu wrote: >>> > LGTM. >>> > >>> > And I think we should also update our issue templates. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Max Xu >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi team, >>> > > >>> > > Many thanks for your feedback! We've adjusted the convention based >>> on your >>> > > suggestions! >>> > > >>> > > Below is a brief summary of what we have reached a consensus on: >>> > > >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > > >>> > > 1. Convention >>> > > >>> > > Continue to follow our existing convention (it's customized on >>> Agular) [1] >>> > > >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > > >>> > > 2. Definition >>> > > >>> > > [type] must be one of the following: >>> > > - feat (abbr for "feature") >>> > > - improve >>> > > - fix >>> > > - cleanup >>> > > - refactor >>> > > - revert >>> > > >>> > > [scope] must be one of the following: >>> > > - admin >>> > > - broker >>> > > - cli (changes to CLI tools) >>> > > - io >>> > > - fn (abbr for "function") >>> > > - meta (abbr for "metadata") >>> > > - monitor >>> > > - proxy >>> > > - schema >>> > > - sec (abbr for "security") >>> > > - sql >>> > > - storage >>> > > - offload (changes to tiered storage) >>> > > - txn >>> > > - java >>> > > - cpp >>> > > - py >>> > > - ws (changes to WebSocket) >>> > > - test (changes to code tests) >>> > > - ci (changes to CI workflow) >>> > > - build (changes to dependencies, docker, build or release script) >>> > > - misc >>> > > - doc >>> > > - blog >>> > > - site >>> > > >>> > > For full details, see [Guide] Pulsar Pull Request Naming Convention >>> [2] >>> > > >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > > >>> > > If you have any concerns, feel free to comment before 13:00 August >>> 25 (UTC >>> > > +8). >>> > > >>> > > We'll start implementing it if there is no objection after that time. >>> > > >>> > > Thank you! >>> > > >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > > >>> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/90rcjf1dv0fbkb5hm31kmgr65fj0nfnn >>> > > [2] >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno >>> > > >>> > > Yu and mangoGoForward >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 5:59 PM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Hi Jiuming, Yunze, tison, >>> > > > Thanks for your vote! >>> > > > >>> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi tison, >>> > > > >>> > > > > "packaging logics" >>> > > > > For example, build the docker image, build & publish shell >>> scripts. >>> > > > >>> > > > If you refer to these changes, they belong to [build] scope. >>> > > > >>> > > > Yu and Zixuan >>> > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 1:25 PM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> Hi Yu, >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Reply inline: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> > Besides, the existing scope, [tool], refers to Pulsar CLI tools >>> [1]. >>> > > >> > We're considering to rename it to [cli] since: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Make sense. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> > "deployment logic" If so, can we ignore this? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> I saw you already remove [deploy] scope. No comment here. It >>> should be >>> > > >> fine. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> > "packaging logics" >>> > > >> >>> > > >> For example, build the docker image, build & publish shell >>> scripts. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> > How about defining [build] refer to the following? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Make sense. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> > Two quick questions need your vote! >>> > > >> >>> > > >> To save letters, B & A. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Best, >>> > > >> tison. >>> > > >> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
