This is a work in progress Merge Request!
If you want (a) to get code reviews from others, or
(b) to land the patch in GHC,
please do follow these guidelines.
* [ ] (you can do this last) please replace this entire notice and checklist template with the following:
- a description of what the Merge Request does. For single-commit MRs, the commit message is often perfect
- A reference (e.g. #19415) to the ticket that led to this MR, and that describes the
problem that this MR solves. Almost all MRs need a ticket, except the tiniest
changes (e.g. code formatting)
- A ticket describes a *problem*
- A merge request describes a *solution* to that problem.
* [ ] commits need to be either individually buildable or squashed
* [ ] commits need to have commit messages which describe *what they do*
(referring to [Notes][notes] and tickets using `#NNNN` syntax when
appropriate)
* [ ] add source comments describing your change. For larger changes you
likely should add a [Note][notes] and cross-reference it from the relevant
places.
* [ ] add a [testcase to the
If you have any questions don't hesitate to open your merge request and inquire
in a comment. If your patch isn't quite done yet please do add a `WIP:` prefix to
your MR title.
[notes]: For general style guidance and information on notes see
Thanks Julian
I am by definition the wrong person to judge (or even write) text like this.
Could you possibly have a go at editing the draft I sent so that you think it has the right tone and content? The current one is not working well. Your draft will almost certainly be better than mine.
Simon
I’ve only contributed a couple of times, but I personally found the checklist invaluable to guide me (and remind me of) what needed to be done in total. In addition, giving folks a checklist that they can actually check off gives us a common set of agreed upon things that’s needed in an MR right in the MR, which is nice to folks.
I wonder if we could reword it to say it’s still a work in progress or words to that effect at the top, and make the system not allow MRs to be built and/or merged unless they edit that text away, as well as have a bot inform them of why this is? :) I like the idea of the system guiding us through the process.
Would it be possible to get our tooling (a bot?) to nudge us if we haven’t changed it?
I often see MRs in my inbox that say
Thank you for your contribution to GHC!
Please take a few moments to verify that your commits fulfill the following:
[ ] are either individually buildable or squashed
This is because the author hasn’t changed the Description of the MR, but rather has left the template text unchanged.
As a way to “nudge” authors to give reviewers more information, I suggest replacing the template text with the draft below. Does anyone have any views, for or against?
Simon