PR template change to require an issue first?

[Colin Alworth]

Given the recent spate of fixes without issues (and some without even problems), I'd like to propose we change our policy and PR template to require an issue, and advise that the absence of an issue filed and given due discussion may lead to the PR being closed.

Strawman change:

--- a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
+++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
@@ -8,3 +8,7 @@ The message should end with a reference to the github issue being
 addressed in this pull request, e.g. "Fixes #42" to close the linked
 issue, or "Partial #42" to indicate that this merge will address it,
 but that it isn't ready to be closed yet.
+
+If there is no related issue, please create one first. Without an
+issue and time for discussion, it is unlikely that your pull request
+will be accepted.

Any thoughts in favor or against, or preferred wording?

[Juan Pablo Gardella]

+1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/1ddacde9-95d1-4c9a-be2c-ace8f7bc56cbn%40googlegroups.com.

[zbyne...@gmail.com]

+ 1

Also maybe worth adding an admonition block at the top of https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md stating that pull requests are welcome, but before creating one the author should create an issue.

[Jens]

Generally fine, although I would make it more strict and directly say that the PR will be closed right away. A reviewer should not be required to spend extra time to decide if the PR is good enough to keep open and wait for an issue. 

But given that these kind of pull requests are usually AI driven we might want to think about an AI-Tool usage policy. I already posted it in chat but I kind of like the writeup done by LLVM: https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html

Such a policy can then also contain information about creating an issue first. The LLVM policy basically allows AI tool use (with approriate commit/PR trailer to indicate tool use) but requires that a human fully understands the code in question and communicates with the reviewer personally. Fully automated tools with automated comment responses or copy/pasted AI responses are disallowed. We already had a few PRs like these.

-- J.