I'm not sure if it would work here, but I have seen some issue templates, e.g. for haskell-language-server on github[1], use comment markup in the template. e.g. <!-- If you encounter a bug or you have a support question, please try to fill out some of the information below. Generally speaking, the information below is meant to help debugging issues but is no prerequisite for opening an issue. --> This is not rendered on the web or email views, but is seen when editing. Alan [1] https://github.com/haskell/haskell-language-server/issues/new On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 21:21, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

I'm happy with this direction, though I don't think we should expect that even capital letters will actually make people notice the text. One small change to suggest, below:

On Feb 23, 2021, at 11:14 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:

*Proposed new template* PLEASE REPLACE ALL OF THIS TEXT with a description of your merge request, including

* A description of what the Merge Request does. For a single-commit MR, a copy of 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.

While you are encouraged to write a good MR Description, it’s not compulsory. You could just be putting up the MR to share with a colleague, for example.

But if you want (a) to get code reviews from others, or (b) to land the patch in GHC, please do follow these guidelines.

If you are not ready for wide review, please start the MR name with the prefix "WIP:", for "work in progress".

For general style guidance see https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/commentary/coding-style

Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

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 From: Julian Leviston Sent: 23 February 2021 21:59 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: ghc-devs Subject: Re: MR template text Hi Simon, list et al, 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. Regards, Julian Would it be possible to get our tooling (a bot?) to nudge us if we haven’t changed it? On 24 Feb 2021, at 3:14 am, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote: 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