github: add issue and pull request templates #5291
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | ||
| _Thanks for wanting to report an issue you've found in Node.js. Please delete | ||
| this text and fill in the template below. If unsure about something, just do as | ||
| best as you're able._ | ||
|
|
||
| _Note that it will be much easier for us to fix the issue if a test case that | ||
| reproduces the problem is provided. Ideally this test case should not have any | ||
| external dependencies. We understand that it is not always possible to reduce | ||
| your code to a small test case, but we would appreciate to have as much data as | ||
| possible. Thank you!_ | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. It's rather wordy. I'd condense it to two or three sentences. There was a problem hiding this comment. It is 5 sentences in total, including |
||
|
|
||
| * **Version**: _output of `node -v`_ | ||
| * **Platform**: _either `uname -a` output, or if Windows, version and 32-bit or | ||
| 64-bit_ | ||
| * **Subsystem**: _optional. if known - please specify affected core module name_ | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Perhaps an extra sentence at the bottom that tells that this whole thing is optional and that one could report generic issues and feature requests as well? There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm open to any suggestions on proper wording for this. |
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ | ||
| ### Description of change | ||
|
|
||
| _Please provide a description of the change here._ | ||
|
|
||
| ### Pull Request check-list | ||
|
|
||
| _Please make sure to review and check all of these items:_ | ||
|
|
||
| - [ ] Does `make -j8 test` (UNIX) or `vcbuild test nosign` (Windows) pass with | ||
| this change (including linting)? | ||
| - [ ] Is the commit message formatted according to [CONTRIBUTING.md][0]? | ||
| - [ ] If this change fixes a bug (or a performance problem), is a regression | ||
| test (or a benchmark) included? | ||
| - [ ] Is a documentation update included (if this change modifies | ||
| existing APIs, or introduces new ones)? | ||
|
|
||
| _NOTE: these things are not required to open a PR and can be done afterwards / | ||
| while the PR is open._ | ||
|
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Test or benchmark included? There was a problem hiding this comment. Should "+1 review " be a step here? ( I'm +1 about using these checkboxes for PRs, just to be clear.) There was a problem hiding this comment. What do you mean by "+1 review"? There was a problem hiding this comment. Maybe add something along the lines of: "Note: any of the above can be amended after and is not required to open a PR" There was a problem hiding this comment. They are quite required :) We won't land PR if any one of these is not present. There was a problem hiding this comment. Required to land, but not to open it. basically I'd like to note that there can be done while the PR is open, i.e. you can write docs after we think a change is good. There was a problem hiding this comment. What about saying above that these items could be checked after the PR is open, and if some of them are not done yet - they could be checked upon completion? There was a problem hiding this comment. @Fishrock123 does this wording sound better? There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't think so. I meant having a note at the bottom of the section stating these things are not required to open a PR and can be done afterwards / while the PR is open. |
||
| ### Affected core subsystem(s) | ||
|
|
||
| _Please provide affected core subsystem(s) (like buffer, cluster, crypto, etc)_ | ||
|
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Relevant version would be good also for tracking LTS relevant changes. There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm actually going to remove this, because it is up to CTC to decide what it is. There was a problem hiding this comment. What if the submitter has a strong case for minor vs major? |
||
| [0]: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#step-3-commit | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we would appreciate having as much data as possible.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ack.