Jefffrey commented on code in PR #11211: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/11211#discussion_r4102522649
########## .github/pull_request_template.md: ########## @@ -26,15 +32,27 @@ We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code -If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? +If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they +covered by existing tests)? + +If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as +benchmark results. -If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as benchmark results. +DO NOT simply paste a list of commands ran to verify the code; this is what our +CI is for and it pollutes the PR. ONLY explain if testing was included with this +PR, or why it wasn't. --> -# Are there any user-facing changes? +# Are there any significant user-facing changes? Review Comment: this is another pet peeve; so many times i see a bug fix PR that fills this section as "user facing change", when this is not what the section is intended for (more noise to the PR body) happy for any suggestion to clean up this wording to make it more clear ########## .github/pull_request_template.md: ########## @@ -26,15 +32,27 @@ We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code -If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? +If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they +covered by existing tests)? + +If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as +benchmark results. -If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as benchmark results. +DO NOT simply paste a list of commands ran to verify the code; this is what our Review Comment: this really annoys me, as its just adding noise to the PR body ########## .github/pull_request_template.md: ########## @@ -1,22 +1,28 @@ # Which issue does this PR close? <!-- -We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. +It is not necessary to raise an issue, but it is encouraged if it is a non-trivial Review Comment: we now generate changelogs based only on merged PRs, so issues aren't technically required anymore ########## .github/pull_request_template.md: ########## @@ -1,22 +1,28 @@ # Which issue does this PR close? <!-- -We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. +It is not necessary to raise an issue, but it is encouraged if it is a non-trivial +enhancement/bug. + +If this PR relates to an existing issue, please ensure the wording is changed from +"Closes #NNN" to "Relates to #NNN" or "Part of #NNN" to avoid false closing an issue. Review Comment: this bugs me sometimes as i see PRs which address only a single case from an issue but the PR claims to close it -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
