search

eclipse-thingweb / node-wot

Components for building WoT devices or for interacting with them over various IoT protocols
https://thingweb.io
Other
162 stars 78 forks source link

Having a full community profile #559

Open egekorkan opened 3 years ago

egekorkan commented 3 years ago

In the community tab of the insights (https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/community) it is recommended to have:

The last thing is managing when someone clicks the "Report Content" button and fills out the questions.

Regarding the other ones, I am not entirely sure:

There is also this issue: https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/issues/241 and given the community guideline of GitHub, they are desired features. What are the different opinions on this?

danielpeintner commented 3 years ago

Personally, I am not a big fan of these kind of templates. I need to put my thoughts into a given template 🙈

egekorkan commented 3 years ago

Me neither but when I see them in a repository that I am doing a PR or opening an issue for the first time, it gives me somewhat more confidence that I am not doing something wrong. For us, we can simply use a blank issue/pr.

relu91 commented 3 years ago

One question:

Templates should work for us not against us, so we probably need to keep them open enough to let people express their points. But if there's something that we require to be explicitly explained in every PR/Issue we need to put it in the template. Mostly because it will speed up the review/answering process.

One thing that just comes up to my mind is that when a PR upgrade one dependency (see #554 review). I would say that if someone wants to upgrade one library, at least one line explaining why he/she is doing so is needed. A link to an issue would be fine too as long as it explains why he/she is doing that change.

About issues maybe we want to clearly state the related package, so that we can label the issue quicker (or even automatically). I think we should brainstorm some ideas here and then go on with a small PR with the concrete proposal.

For inspiration.

egekorkan commented 3 years ago

Besides the practical usefulness of those templates, are you aware of any other side benefit? For example, do we get more visibility (higher positions in Github search results) if we complete all the points?

I couldn't find a good result other than everyone recommending it. One thing that would of almost no effect for regular contributors would be to create some notes that are commented out in the PR template. It would show up when someone is writing the markdown but can be simply ignored. There can be notes saying "Have you agreed to the Eclipse Contributor agreement?", "Have you signed of your commits?".

egekorkan commented 2 years ago

To avoid the rather common issue in #619 I think it would be good to have a PR template that is just questions as an HTML comment like proposed at https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/issues/241

If it is fine, I can write a markdown document and put it as a comment here

danielpeintner commented 2 years ago

taken from https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/issues/241

  • [ ] I agreed to the Eclipse Contributor agreement
  • [ ] All of this code is mine and I'm allowed to contribute it
  • [ ] I signed off my commits
  • [ ] the commit author and sign off e-mail adress match with the one I agreed to the Eclipse Contributor agreement with

Doing so seems fine to me but I would say checking the boxes does not really help. Often issues arise because of mismatch of various email addresses. Moreover, raising the bar for initial contributions is somewhat counterproductive also.

Maybe the template should be very vague and simply pointing to the legal-requirements

Any thoughts?

egekorkan commented 2 years ago

Pointing to legal requirements would be fine :)