Updated Contributing.txt with more details #7990
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me, this mostly feels more verbose without actually adding anything. @webknjaz Any thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, agreed. We don't want an entire Git tutorial or things that are documented elsewhere to be copy-and-pasted there since this is an additional maintenance burden to keep copies in sync.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, there's a copy of this document in our Sphinx docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I typically keep something short like https://ansible-pylibssh.rtfd.io/en/latest/contributing/guidelines/, but in some cases, it makes sense to give more examples: https://github.com/python-attrs/attrs/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md.
Still, I don't like trying to maintain the same thing somebody else does.
|
|
||
| 8. Optionally make backport Pull Request(s) for landing a bug fix into released aiohttp versions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line should probably be changed though to better reflect current practices.
Maybe something like:
Once merged, backports may be created automatically by a bot. If the bot fails to do this, please follow the instructions from the bot to complete the backport PRs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, i will check that, thanks for the information!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That only works if somebody reviewing the PR puts the labels on. The contributors might still want to optionally offer manually-crafted backport PRs. (or semi-manually — we have a config for the CPython's cherry-picker tool!)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I'm just thinking it's usually safer to wait for the bot. A maintainer should add the label when they believe a backport is needed. Surely cherry picking won't work well if done before merging anyway, as they'd be picking commits from the branch, which won't end up on master (there will just be a squash commit instead).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that the bot experiences instability because of #4581, that I haven't really had time to tackle properly. I think it needs to be prioritized but there's a lot on my plate right now. A workaround is to re-apply the label (but for that, one must notice the failure first).
| 1. Clone the GitHub_ repo using the ``--recurse-submodules`` argument | ||
| Clone the Repository: | ||
| - 1.Open the provided GitHub link and click the "Fork" button on the upper-right of the web page to create your fork. | ||
| - 2.Clone your forked repository using the --recurse-submodules argument to ensure submodules are also cloned. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This breaks the syntax highlighting.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #7990 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.44% 97.44%
=======================================
Files 107 107
Lines 32370 32370
Branches 3751 3751
=======================================
Hits 31544 31544
Misses 624 624
Partials 202 202
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
What do these changes do?
Are there changes in behavior for the user?
Related issue number
Checklist
CONTRIBUTORS.txtCHANGESfolder<issue_id>.<type>for example (588.bugfix)issue_idchange it to the pr id after creating the pr.feature: Signifying a new feature..bugfix: Signifying a bug fix..doc: Signifying a documentation improvement..removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API..misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.