Clarify 'describe your project' question in Issue template.

[willnationsdev]

cc @Xrayez @clayjohn

Closes #39 so-to-speak. Questions won't be removed, but they can be reworded for clarity. The intent is to restrict proposals to only those that are relevant for actual work being done by the community (things that solve real obstacles / use-cases). The first question is meant to elicit an explanation of what that use-case is, put the proposal into context, and ward away people who are creating Issues just to request things they would like to have rather than need to have (as contributors do not have time/manpower to implement other features). It now more accurately states that the user must be trying to address a real problem in a real project, tool, or other type of task - and if they aren't, then they shouldn't be making a proposal.

[nobuyukinyuu]

Does this make the question asking if there could be a workaround redundant? That's the question where I'd normally put project-relevant information related to this rewording.

[Xrayez]

I'm not sure now if there's a need to change this given the stance of core devs regarding the requirements ("what is needed" vs "what is wanted").

I'd much rather prefer this question to be removed completely to be honest (again, making it optional would be the best compromise). Most people just don't reveal what they are currently working on despite the question. If they do, it's a game genre information at most, or simply editor-specific context: "Top-down shooting game, but it doesn't matter, it's UI".

I think the following question currently present in the template is enough in my opinion:

Describe the problem or limitation you are having in your project:

---

Please don't force people to reveal their ideas. Ask them for use cases, not real-life projects. Godot was not open-source for a long time so I'd like @reduz to respect the choice of people not revealing what they are currently working on if there's no need for that. If a certain use case is not obvious without the context, simply close such a proposal, or ask the person to provide more concrete, real-life use cases. Otherwise it just signifies that the actual use cases are too specific to be implemented in core anyway, so I don't see the point.

If godot-proposals was created just to "filter out the noise", then I'm not sure whether the previous discussion was worth it.

@reduz probably hates me by now. 👀

Feel free to close this, sorry to bother you folks, I don't want to look hostile, I'm just learning to express my opinion (the most difficult thing for me to do, especially in a language with words and letters so distant from my gdnative). 🙂

[aaronfranke]

I don't really think this is an improvement. The existing question is a fairly short way to ask users to provide their use cases for the feature. This proposal also seems a bit strange since it asks for a project that cannot be completed without the proposal, yet I think we should allow proposals that simply improve or simplify the workflow.

So, I vote to close this.

[Xrayez]

This proposal also seems a bit strange since it asks for a project that cannot be completed without the proposal

Yes, many existing proposals would have to be closed with this requirement. In fact this is also true for the current template. So currently it's either allowing people to put everything under "describe your project" without closing the proposal, or there should be an editor-specific template (again this is also described in #39.

[aaronfranke]

Closing for all of the above reasons, plus there is a conflict anyway.