+1 on Marcelo's comments. It would be nice not to pollute commit messages
with the instructions because some people might forget to remove them.
Nobody has suggested removing the template.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Joseph Bradley
wrote:
> +1 for keeping the template
>
> I figure any temp
I think it'd make sense to have the merge script automatically remove some
parts of the template, if they were not removed by the contributor. That
seems trivial to do.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Joseph Bradley
wrote:
> +1 for keeping the template
>
> I figure any template will require co
Nobody has suggested removing the template.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Joseph Bradley wrote:
> +1 for keeping the template
>
> I figure any template will require conscientiousness & enforcement.
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>>
>> The template is a great thing as it
+1 for keeping the template
I figure any template will require conscientiousness & enforcement.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> The template is a great thing as it gets instructions even more right
> in front of people.
>
> Another idea is to just write a checklist of items,
The template is a great thing as it gets instructions even more right
in front of people.
Another idea is to just write a checklist of items, like "did you
describe your changes? did you test? etc." with instructions to delete
the text and replace with a description. This keeps the boilerplate
tit
Hey all,
Just wanted to ask: how do people like this new template?
While I think it's great to have instructions for people to write
proper commit messages, I think the current template has a few
downsides.
- I tend to write verbose commit messages already when I'm preparing a
PR. Now when I ope
We can add that too - just need to figure out a good way so people don't
leave a lot of the unnecessary "guideline" messages in the template.
The contributing guide is great, but unfortunately it is not as noticeable
and is often ignored. It's good to have this full-fledged contributing
guide, and
All that seems fine. All of this is covered in the contributing wiki,
which is linked from CONTRIBUTING.md (and should be from the
template), but people don't seem to bother reading it. I don't mind
duplicating some key points, and even a more explicit exhortation to
read the whole wiki, before con
It's a good idea. I would add in there the spec for the PR title. I always
get wrong the order between Jira and component.
Moreover, CONTRIBUTING.md is also lacking them. Any reason not to add it
there? I can open PRs for both, but maybe you want to keep that info on the
wiki instead.
iulian
On
