Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Pull Request Template, add question about updating Icepack #754

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 23, 2022
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ please refer to: <https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/About-Us/wiki/Resource-Inde
- Does this PR create or have dependencies on Icepack or any other models?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
- Does this PR update the Icepack submodule? If so, the Icepack submodule should point to a hash on Icepack's main branch.
- [ ] Yes
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] Yes, does it point to a commit in Icepack's `main` branch ?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I sort of disagree. I think that's getting too deep in the weeds and folks that have erroneously included Icepack changes probably won't understand. I think even the first question is unlikely to be answered correctly all the time when folks make a mistake. I think the main point of the new question is to raise awareness that Icepack is relatively easy to change in CICE and to remind us reviewers to double-check.

Maybe what we really need is a review template that reviewers have to fill out.

  • Is Icepack updated
  • Is the documentation updated
  • Does the documentation look OK
  • Is testing adequate
    ...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the confusing thing is that we always point to a "hash" of Icepack. So, this might be confusing mention main. Otherwise I do like this.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rather than asking this as a question, it could just be noted, e.g.
Does this PR update the Icepack submodule? If so, it must point to a hash in Icepack's main branch.
yes/no

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that's a good idea !

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I added an extra sentence.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please change 'should' to 'must'

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

must seems a little too rigid, but I'll make the change.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@phil-blain, are you OK with the current state of changes and approve?

- [ ] No
- Does this PR add any new test cases?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
Expand Down