[workflow] Update issue templates #1794
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1794 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 43.35% 42.45% -0.90%
==========================================
Files 43 44 +1
Lines 5995 6202 +207
Branches 1040 1073 +33
==========================================
+ Hits 2599 2633 +34
- Misses 3246 3414 +168
- Partials 150 155 +5
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
.gitignore
Outdated
| @@ -74,4 +74,3 @@ _build | |||
| *.ptx | |||
| *.ll | |||
| *.bc | |||
| *.yml | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the reason for removing this? Asking because action recording could produce yml files (which IMO should be ignored).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
.travis.yml, appveyor.yml, etc. There're too many files involving yml. For example, I added .github/workflows/some_new_workflow.yml, and find it's not added because of .gitignore.
FYI I use .gitignore_localrc for ignoring these outputs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we should keep ignoring *.yml files. Most of these should not be added automatically.
You can always use git add --force for exceptions.
Please revert this change if that makes sense.
Co-authored-by: Ye Kuang <[email protected]>
.gitignore
Outdated
| @@ -74,4 +74,3 @@ _build | |||
| *.ptx | |||
| *.ll | |||
| *.bc | |||
| *.yml | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we should keep ignoring *.yml files. Most of these should not be added automatically.
You can always use git add --force for exceptions.
Please revert this change if that makes sense.
|
|
||
| **Describe the solution you'd like (if any)** | ||
| A clear and concise description of what you want to achieve and implement. | ||
| You may also describe an alternative solution you've thought (if any). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| You may also describe an alternative solution you've thought (if any). |
Sorry but I don't understand this - do you want the issue opener to describe a second solution?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, better expressions?
| A clear and concise description of what you want. For example: | ||
|
|
||
| I would like to add an Apple Metal backend to the compiler so that my Macbook GPU can be utilized. | ||
|
|
||
| **Think about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed feature** | ||
| All coins have its two side, we encourage people to think critically. For example: | ||
|
|
||
| Advantages: | ||
| 1. So that Apple users could utilize their GPU resources. | ||
|
|
||
| Disadvantages: | ||
| 1. Increases the maintainance cost over multiple backends. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The older version actually looks better. It's good to think about "two sides", but we don't want to overwhelm newcomers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about Think about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed feature (if any)? For example I immediately closed #1648 after thought about not-return-by-reference. This is actually helpful for people to rethink the reason why we need to add this feature and search for better solutions.
Smaller PRs are always good. We should do that in a future PR. The format of #1750 may serve as a reference. Thanks! :-) |
Co-authored-by: Yuanming Hu <[email protected]>
Related issue = #677
[Click here for the format server]
Preview the affect of
config.yml: https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/new/chooseShould I add
refactor.mdin this PR?