Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create opinionated pull request template #1561

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mcm001
Copy link
Contributor

@mcm001 mcm001 commented Nov 12, 2024

Description

Formalize how pull requests should look, and add a checklist to reduce tribal knowledge around things to watch out for. Having a consistent look to PRs and adding some framework around expectations is helpful for keeping people on the same page, but can also be intimidating. I've attempted to kept this list short and tone friendly.

Meta

Merge checklist:

  • Pull Request title is short, imperitive summary of proposed changes
  • The description documents the what and why
  • If this PR touches photon-serde, all messages have been regenerated and hashes have not changed unexpectedly
  • If this PR touches configuration, this is backwards compatible with settings back to v2024.3.1
  • If this PR addresses a bug, a regression test for it is added

@mcm001 mcm001 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 12, 2024 06:14
@mcm001 mcm001 changed the title Create opionated pull request template Create opinionated pull request template Nov 12, 2024
.github/pull_request_template.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/pull_request_template.md Show resolved Hide resolved
- [ ] Pull Request title is [short, imperative summary](https://cbea.ms/git-commit/) of proposed changes
- [ ] The description documents the _what_ and _why_
- [ ] If this PR touches photon-serde, all messages have been regenerated and hashes have not changed unexpectedly
- [ ] If this PR touches configuration, this is backwards compatible with settings back to v2024.3.1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should it be for that year? 2025.X.X or whatever unless this is just intentional to make it always compatible back to then

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants