Details
-
Type:
RFC
-
Status: Implemented
-
Resolution: Done
-
Component/s: DM
-
Labels:None
Description
The DM development workflow section "Make a pull request" states that a pull request's name should be formatted as:
DM-NNNN: {{JIRA Ticket Title}}
|
While I think that prefixing a pull request's title with the Jira issue handle is a good idea, the suggestion that the rest of the title should match the Jira issue title is not always what we want. Instead, I propose that we update the guideline to suggest that the PR title should summarize how the pull request changes the codebase, which can be different than the Jira issue title/summary.
Reasons a Jira issue summary may not be appropriate for a pull request are:
- Multiple pull requests are needed to the same, or multiple repositories, to fulfill a Jira issue, and each pull request has a unique change on each codebase.
- The Jira issue was a bug report; the title of which does not suggest the fix.
In other words, a Jira issue reflects a unit of work, while a pull request reflects a unit of change to a source repository. Its clear that flexibility to name these things differently is useful, and indeed, this is already common practice. The purpose of this RFC is to update the standard for the record.
Attachments
Issue Links
Activity
Yes please! This not only doesn't make sense for the reasons described, but also I think the dev guide should capture actual practice and clearly this rule is honoured more in the breach than the observance. 
DMCCB discussed this today and are happy for this change to be made. It is not a topic requiring CCB oversight.
Don't take this as opposition to the RFC, but I've found it helpful to not have to think of PR titles for tickets that cross multiple packages (I seem to work on a lot of those). The commit messages describe what each change does, while the PR title is the "overarching vision". But so long as we keep the ticket number at the start, I think that cross-package consistency will still hold.
This small adjustment to the developer guide seems well-received; the implementation ticket is DM-30381.
Thank you for RFCing what I was too lazy to RFC myself.