Repository navigation
Pull Request template - #8476
tacaswell merged 10 commits into
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
Started template for PR
removed changelog 'cause @tacaswell said to
relative links for the mpl internal references
| - [ ] change the API in a backward-incompatible way: documented it in [doc/api/api_changes.rst](../doc/api/api_changes) | ||
|
|
||
| We understand that PRs can sometimes feel like a guantlet, especially as the reviews start coming in. Please let us know | ||
| if the reviews are unclear or the recommended next step is too ardous, and if you'd like help in addressing a reveiwers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
arduous
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
reviewer's
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Could we also have a comment to leave a descriptive title? I hate titles that say "address such-and-such PR". |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
|
||
| ** Major Changes ** | ||
| - [ ] major new feature: added an entry to [doc/users/whats_new.rst](../doc/users/whats_new). | ||
| - [ ] change the API in a backward-incompatible way: documented it in [doc/api/api_changes.rst](../doc/api/api_changes) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
documented --> document
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, nevermind, I see it is all supposed to be past tense.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Something to keep in mind is that this will appear in unrendered form in the description, thus it should be made as brief as possible (oftentimes reporters don't even read the issue template). Relatedly, we shouldn't add too many links because they aren't rendered and you need to copy and paste to view what's in them instead of a simple click, so people won't look at them. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@QuLogic 😦 it's a balancing act. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask potential contributors to read at least this much, and part of the reason we're providing the info here is because a lot of contributors don't seem to read the development guide... |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| <!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. --> | ||
|
|
||
| ## PR Checklist | ||
| - [ ] Code is tested using Py.test on Py2 and Py3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's pytest (no dot) these days
it's may be a bit harsh to request testing on both py2 and py3 (plus you also need to check somewhat antique versions of numpy) so I'd just say "unit tests are present" (travis will catch failures anyways) (for example I typically only run tests on py3.6+latest numpy and just let travis tell me if anything else needs to be corrected)
Sorry, something went wrong.
| ## PR Checklist | ||
| - [ ] Code is tested using Py.test on Py2 and Py3 | ||
| - [ ] Code is PEP 8 compliant | ||
| - [ ] New features are documented-and have an example if plot related |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
extra dash
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - [ ] Code is PEP 8 compliant | ||
| - [ ] New features are documented-and have an example if plot related | ||
| - [ ] Documentation is sphinx and numpydoc compliant | ||
| - [ ] major new feature: added an entry to doc/users/whats_new.rst |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"For major new features", and below "For backwards incompatible changes to the API"
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - [ ] major new feature: added an entry to doc/users/whats_new.rst | ||
| - [ ] change the API in a backward-incompatible way: documented it in doc/api/api_changes.rst | ||
|
|
||
| We understand that PRs can sometimes feel like a guantlet, especially as the reviews start coming in. Please let us know |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
gauntlet
the line wrapping is a bit weird.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| - [ ] Code is PEP 8 compliant | ||
| - [ ] New features are documented, with examples if plot related | ||
| - [ ] Documentation is sphinx and numpydoc compliant | ||
| - [ ] Added an entry to doc/users/whats_new.rst if major new feature: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
remove end colon.
suggest squashing after that (not much point in having 10 commits for this single file)
Sorry, something went wrong.
I thought that parts of the discussion in #8456 were well worth exposing to new contributors and @phobson suggested that a PR template might be a good place to do it and worthwhile as a way to maybe improve initial PRs.
CC: @tacaswell, @WeatherGod, @phobson