The DM development workflow section "Make a pull request" states that a pull request's name should be formatted as:
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.