I understand your concern, Nicholas. However, isn't it too strict? For the above example, adding a new HTML page is a user-facing change.
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/48852 (This is a new doc) [SPARK-50309][DOCS] Document SQL Pipe Syntax https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49098 (This is one line link addition) [SPARK-48426][DOCS][FOLLOWUP] Add `Operators` page to `sql-ref.md` Given your definition, even a word typo fix inside an HTML page becomes a user-facing change. Did I understand your definition correctly? Or, is it something else? Dongjoon. On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 9:15 AM Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is not a big deal at all, but I figure it’s worth bringing up briefly > because the pull request template does emphasize > <https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/ffb31565e5af6f9ab2f8f7b500fbd595c8bb5a58/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE#L34-L36> > : > > > ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? > > > > Note that it means *any* user-facing change including all aspects such > as the documentation fix. > > And yet I regularly see PRs where the author states “no user-facing > change” even though there are clearly user-facing documentation changes > included in the diff. > > Some examples: > - https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/47756 > - https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49098 > - https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/48852 > - https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49273 > > Again, not a big deal. But I assume committers care about this since it’s > in the PR template. > > We should remind contributors (and each other) to answer this question > correctly when appropriate, or we should perhaps update the PR template if > the guidance there is outdated. > > Nick > >
