Repository navigation
Proposal: add issue templates to this repo #227
Description
Activity
Feature requests is out of scope of 0.7. They belong in the solid/specification repository.
New issues can only be about erratas to the 0.7 spec.
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz, André Jaenisch and Aaron Coburn@csarven thanks for the input
The idea of feature requests would be to guide the user in where to post
Another way would be only to have a bug report item with an explanatory message:
One looks like this:
The other looks like this:
You can imagine that boiler plate text to be something useful to guide the user and lower confusion
Supportive of guiding users NOT to raise feature requests, using either path
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz-1 to this. This repository is archived. There is no need for issue templates for it.
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz and MaximIn github it is possible to create issue templates in order to guide a user in how to express an issue
There was concern expressed about confusion caused when raising spec related issues
Creating issue templates could have the effect of killing two birds with one stone
- Improving the quality and nature of issues raised here (which in isolation would be a good thing)
- Ability to guide users more effectively going forward
I propose that we begin with the standard two types of issue templates
- bug reports
- feature requests
The text then becomes part of the repository. And it would be possible to iterate on that text.
How about dropping the "Feature Request" option so that whoever encounters the form ends up performing either of the following actions:
- Logs a fix or correction to the draft repo
- Seeks an alternative repo (i.e., specifications overseen by @csarven) for new features related matters.
The suggestion above should solve the problem that's underlying this thread. IMHO.
The suggestion above should solve the problem that's underlying this thread. IMHO.
The problem underlying this thread is - this repository is no longer active. It does not need an issue template, since no new issues will be created.
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz@melvincarvalho If the other stakeholders will agree with this very likely depends on the text of the templates.
Reacted by Melvin CarvalhoThe suggestion above should solve the problem that's underlying this thread. IMHO.
The problem underlying this thread is - this repository is no longer active. It does not need an issue template, since no new issues will be created.
That worldview is the basis for the objection raised by @melvincarvalho.
We have conflicting world-views here and the goal is to solve this issue harmoniously for the betterment of the broader community.
Again, I am calling to flexibility here with a fundamental understanding that individuality and community can be strange bedfellows, especially with the behavior of an app (like what's provided by Github) in the mix.
Reacted by Andreas KuckartzFeature requests is out of scope of 0.7. They belong in the solid/specification repository.
New issues can only be about erratas to the 0.7 spec.
Okay, and I believe that's consistent with the template modifications I suggested earlier to @melvincarvalho .
Reacted by Andreas KuckartzAgain, I am calling to flexibility here with a fundamental understanding that individuality and community can be strange bedfellows, especially with the behavior of an app (like what's provided by Github) in the mix.
The impression that I'm (likely erroneously) getting, is that this discussion is proposing is to fork the Solid project and community.
This by itself is totally fine. Forking is a time-honored tool, and is important to free software in general.
What is not fine, is to create this fork at the expense of causing confusion for Solid developers, which is what not explicitly archiving this
solid-specrepo would result in.Reacted by Andreas KuckartzLet's be very clear here. What you and @melvincarvalho are proposing is to fork the Solid project and community.
This by itself is totally fine. Forking is a time-honored tool, and is important to free software in general.
What is not fine, is to create this fork at the expense of causing confusion for Solid developers, which is what not explicitly archiving this
solid-specrepo would result in.I want to be crystal clear with you.
My involvement in this thread is strictly about contributing what I can to calm things down by urging flexibility and mutual understanding across differing views.
Once again, I am simply calling on the "Wisdom of Solomon" to be applied for the greater good.
I hope I have made myself intentions clearer, if prior attempts haven't achieved that fundamental goal.
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz@kidehen ah, thank you, my apologies. I do appreciate you wanting to calm the discussion. Sorry bout that.
Reacted by Andreas KuckartzFeature requests is out of scope of 0.7. They belong in the solid/specification repository.
New issues can only be about erratas to the 0.7 spec.
Yes, and we can achieve that via the tweak suggested in my response :)
Issues associated with 0.7 are fundamentally of type: errata i.e., no "new features" goal is achieved by not including any "new feature" option in the template that @melvincarvalho is putting together.
no "new features" goal is achieved by not including any "new feature" option in the template that @melvincarvalho is putting together.
One alternatively could provide a pseudo "new feature" option with a template text like:
"Do not suggest new features in this repository. Do that in the other repository nearby. Please see our README for an explanation."
Reacted by André Jaenischno "new features" goal is achieved by not including any "new feature" option in the template that @melvincarvalho is putting together.
One alternatively could provide a pseudo "new feature" option with a template text like:
"Do not suggest new features in this repository. Do that in the other repository nearby. Please see our README for an explanation."
Yes, but leaving out "new features" all together in the template helps to avert confusion that will inevitably arise if "new feature" appears as an option or pseudo-option etc..
@dmitrizagidulin thanks for your input. I really would like to try hard to listen to and address your concerns. You can reach out to me off chain if you want a fuller explanation.
If I may provide some context. Looking at the open issues on this repo, there are 4 since August. 2 of them are from timbl and 1 from Ruben. The other issue is a query that was answered and that could well be closed now.
So that's approximately 4 open issues in 9 months. The other specification repo has 148 issues open, and has been going under a year. That's 4 vs 148. Not trying to minimize the issue here, I want to help solve it, but we are already doing quite well, and we can just do a little bit better I think and satisfy everyone.
You yourself have done quite a bit of work on this repo, so you will know that edge cases come up and it's useful to keep a track of them. Wouldnt it be nice if we could mark 0.7 as bug free and have it as standard for Gold and LDPHP to get to?
I hope I can convince you that nothing nefarious is going on here, and if you feel there are deeper issues unaddressed, please feel free to reach out to me.
@akuckartz @kidehen hear you both. I'll do a template for the simpler version (without 'feature request') for now and think up some appropriate text. As you say, that text will be clarifying.
The README can be changed as appropriate, and thanks for raising that separate issue
@kidehen Yes, but if someone is already looking for a way to submit a feature request he or she will perhaps simply submit a "bug" instead.
Anyway, I think the README is what matters even more.
Yes, the README should act as an additional layer of communication to prevent confusion etc..
Reacted by Andreas KuckartzHow about this text?
Issues raised are for bug fixes only. For proposals and feature requests please see README
Open to changes in the copy
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz, Philip and Arne Hassel- added a commit that references this issue
on May 13, 2020 I have created a PR for the above, which I hope might address at least some of the concerns outlined. This was originally suggested independently by Ruben here, noting the conversation did evolve later
It is designed to be self contained and modular. And direct users to only post bug fixes / errata up to 0.7 in this repo, and hopefully partially addresses this comment from Sarven
The boilerplate is fairly standard and contained in the PR. I would be happy to change it
I would like to acknowledge that while this might not address every concern, it may be helpful, to make some progress
The text in the README can evolve in a separate PR, and should take into account timbl's comment
For the record I will not object to any text suggested to the README, as I think it's only helpful to object to one thing at a time :)
The sole concern is to prevent the early archiving of this repo, at this time, for the reasons outlined
Reacted by Andreas Kuckartz
In github it is possible to create issue templates in order to guide a user in how to express an issue
There was concern expressed about confusion caused when raising spec related issues
Creating issue templates could have the effect of killing two birds with one stone
I propose that we begin with the standard two types of issue templates
The text then becomes part of the repository. And it would be possible to iterate on that text.