You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Yu <li...@apache.org> on 2022/08/11 09:01:50 UTC
[Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Hi team,
For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1], we've
got many different suggestions on implementation details. Let's discuss
them one by one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Discussion topic:
For PR titles, which convention should we follow?
- Angular convention [2] - Our existing convention (it's customized based
on Angular) [3] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The differences between Angular and ours
are: 1. Definition 1.1 Property - Angular: [type] is required, [scope] is
optional - Ours: [type] and [scope] are required 1.2 Content - Angular: ci,
test, and docs belong to [type] - Ours: ci, test, and docs belong to
[scope] because
I think [type] defines "what action do you make" (eg.
add/delete/update/...),
while [scope] defines "where do you make changes". 2. Punctuation -
Angular: parenthesis and exclaim points are used - Ours: brackets are used
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparison examples Taking existing Pulsar PR titles as
examples: Example 1 - Angular: fix: Filter out already deleted entries
again before sending messages to consumers - Ours: [fix][broker] Filter out
already deleted entries again before sending messages to consumers Example
2 - Angular: ci: add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project -
Ours: [feat][ci] Add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project
Example 3 - Angular: docs: Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc -
Ours: [improve][doc] Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I prefer our customized convention because: - It makes PR
titles more clear and self-explanatory. - No need to change users' habits
since many people in the community have followed and gotten used to it for
several months [4]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Feel free to comment. Thank you!
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJlUNAHnYAbvu9UtEgCrn_oVTnVc1M5nHC19x1bFab4/edit?pli=1
[2]
https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-message-header
[3]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
[4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls
Yu, Max, mangoGoForward
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Yunze Xu <yz...@streamnative.io.INVALID>.
+1 on the customized one
Thanks,
Yunze
> 2022年8月12日 00:25，Alexander Preuss <al...@streamnative.io.INVALID> 写道：
>
> Hi together,
>
> Thank you for driving this topic!
> I agree that our customized convention is better than the Angular one.
>
> +1 on the customized one
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:02 AM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi team,
>>
>> For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1], we've
>> got many different suggestions on implementation details. Let's discuss
>> them one by one.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Discussion topic:
>>
>> For PR titles, which convention should we follow?
>> - Angular convention [2] - Our existing convention (it's customized based
>> on Angular) [3] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The differences between Angular and ours
>> are: 1. Definition 1.1 Property - Angular: [type] is required, [scope] is
>> optional - Ours: [type] and [scope] are required 1.2 Content - Angular: ci,
>> test, and docs belong to [type] - Ours: ci, test, and docs belong to
>> [scope] because
>> I think [type] defines "what action do you make" (eg.
>> add/delete/update/...),
>> while [scope] defines "where do you make changes". 2. Punctuation -
>> Angular: parenthesis and exclaim points are used - Ours: brackets are used
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparison examples Taking existing Pulsar PR titles as
>> examples: Example 1 - Angular: fix: Filter out already deleted entries
>> again before sending messages to consumers - Ours: [fix][broker] Filter out
>> already deleted entries again before sending messages to consumers Example
>> 2 - Angular: ci: add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project -
>> Ours: [feat][ci] Add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project
>> Example 3 - Angular: docs: Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc -
>> Ours: [improve][doc] Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I prefer our customized convention because: - It makes PR
>> titles more clear and self-explanatory. - No need to change users' habits
>> since many people in the community have followed and gotten used to it for
>> several months [4]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Feel free to comment. Thank you!
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJlUNAHnYAbvu9UtEgCrn_oVTnVc1M5nHC19x1bFab4/edit?pli=1
>>
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-message-header
>> [3]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
>> [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls
>>
>> Yu, Max, mangoGoForward
>>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Alexander Preuss via users <us...@pulsar.apache.org>.
Hi together,
Thank you for driving this topic!
I agree that our customized convention is better than the Angular one.
+1 on the customized one
Best,
Alex
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:02 AM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1], we've
> got many different suggestions on implementation details. Let's discuss
> them one by one.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Discussion topic:
>
> For PR titles, which convention should we follow?
> - Angular convention [2] - Our existing convention (it's customized based
> on Angular) [3] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The differences between Angular and ours
> are: 1. Definition 1.1 Property - Angular: [type] is required, [scope] is
> optional - Ours: [type] and [scope] are required 1.2 Content - Angular: ci,
> test, and docs belong to [type] - Ours: ci, test, and docs belong to
> [scope] because
> I think [type] defines "what action do you make" (eg.
> add/delete/update/...),
> while [scope] defines "where do you make changes". 2. Punctuation -
> Angular: parenthesis and exclaim points are used - Ours: brackets are used
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparison examples Taking existing Pulsar PR titles as
> examples: Example 1 - Angular: fix: Filter out already deleted entries
> again before sending messages to consumers - Ours: [fix][broker] Filter out
> already deleted entries again before sending messages to consumers Example
> 2 - Angular: ci: add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project -
> Ours: [feat][ci] Add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project
> Example 3 - Angular: docs: Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc -
> Ours: [improve][doc] Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I prefer our customized convention because: - It makes PR
> titles more clear and self-explanatory. - No need to change users' habits
> since many people in the community have followed and gotten used to it for
> several months [4]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Feel free to comment. Thank you!
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJlUNAHnYAbvu9UtEgCrn_oVTnVc1M5nHC19x1bFab4/edit?pli=1
>
> [2]
> https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-message-header
> [3]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
> [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls
>
> Yu, Max, mangoGoForward
>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Liu Yu <li...@apache.org>.
Hi team
Thanks for your feedback!
Here is the voting result:
Our existing convention (customized based on Angular) is chosen!
~~~~~~
Our existing convention votes:
5, +1: Yu, Alex, Yunze, Jun, Qiang,
1, +0: tison
Angular convention votes:
1, +1: tison
~~~~~~
I’ll close this discussion and initiate a discussion about another implementation detail in the next email.
Yu
On 2022/08/15 10:32:09 Yu wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> Feel free to choose your desired convention **before EOD 8/16 (UTC +8)**.
>
> We'll close this discussion and move to the next topic after that time.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Yu and mangoGoForward
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 6:27 PM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi tison,
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestions!
> >
> > > But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the
> > toolchain
> > built around it, such as semantic release[1].
> >
> > Our customized convention can use the semantic release tool as well.
> >
> > > Also, Conventional Commits
> > have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may not
> > want it later, shall we customize it further then?
> >
> > - BREAKING CHANGE: yes, we can customize it based on Conventional Commits,
> > eg, [feat][broker]! Add xxx
> > - REVERT: [revert] belongs to [type] in our rule [1]
> >
> > We can change it if it does not make sense.
> > I'll initiate an official discussion on these details and the definition
> > of [type][scope] in another independent email.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
> >
> >
> > Yu and mangoGoForward
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:10 AM tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To clarify, I don't have a strong feeling about either convention.
> >> According to the reason above, I'd prefer the Angular convention, while +0
> >> for the customized convention.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> tison.
> >>
> >>
> >> tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 23:40写道：
> >>
> >> > Technically, the regexp of both conventions are:
> >> >
> >> > * Angular convention - /^(\w*)(?:\((.*)\))?!?: (.*)$/
> >> > * Customized conventions - /^\[(\w*)\](?:\[(.*)\])?: (.*)$/
> >> >
> >> > So, there're technically equal from the customized convention
> >> perspective,
> >> > or the Angular convention contains all expressiveness of the customized
> >> one.
> >> >
> >> > > It makes PR titles more clear and self-explanatory.
> >> > It's subjective. As described above, the Angular convention contains all
> >> > expressiveness of the customized one - it also has type and scope, and
> >> > delimiter length is almost the same.
> >> >
> >> > Let's think of the adoption of each convention:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Customized conventions: better to follow for developers who already
> >> use
> >> > it.
> >> > 2. Angular convention is a popular standard so that:
> >> > (1) It's well-known by _new_ developers. Just tell them we are using
> >> > Conventional Commits.
> >> > (2) Better toolchain support. This time we're lucky
> >> > that action-semantic-pull-request allows you to customize headerPattern.
> >> > But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the
> >> toolchain
> >> > built around it, such as semantic release[1]. Also, Conventional Commits
> >> > have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may
> >> not
> >> > want it later, shall we customize it further then?
> >> >
> >> > +1 for Angular convention.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > tison.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/semantic-release/semantic-release
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Qiang Huang <qi...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 12:15写道：
> >> >
> >> >> I agree that the customized one is better. +1 on the customized one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com> 于2022年8月12日周五 10:51写道：
> >> >>
> >> >> > +1 on the customized one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers
> >> >> > momo-jun
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> BR,
> >> >> Qiang Huang
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Yu <li...@apache.org>.
Hi team,
Feel free to choose your desired convention **before EOD 8/16 (UTC +8)**.
We'll close this discussion and move to the next topic after that time.
Thank you!
Yu and mangoGoForward
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 6:27 PM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi tison,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions!
>
> > But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the
> toolchain
> built around it, such as semantic release[1].
>
> Our customized convention can use the semantic release tool as well.
>
> > Also, Conventional Commits
> have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may not
> want it later, shall we customize it further then?
>
> - BREAKING CHANGE: yes, we can customize it based on Conventional Commits,
> eg, [feat][broker]! Add xxx
> - REVERT: [revert] belongs to [type] in our rule [1]
>
> We can change it if it does not make sense.
> I'll initiate an official discussion on these details and the definition
> of [type][scope] in another independent email.
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
>
>
> Yu and mangoGoForward
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:10 AM tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To clarify, I don't have a strong feeling about either convention.
>> According to the reason above, I'd prefer the Angular convention, while +0
>> for the customized convention.
>>
>> Best,
>> tison.
>>
>>
>> tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 23:40写道：
>>
>> > Technically, the regexp of both conventions are:
>> >
>> > * Angular convention - /^(\w*)(?:\((.*)\))?!?: (.*)$/
>> > * Customized conventions - /^\[(\w*)\](?:\[(.*)\])?: (.*)$/
>> >
>> > So, there're technically equal from the customized convention
>> perspective,
>> > or the Angular convention contains all expressiveness of the customized
>> one.
>> >
>> > > It makes PR titles more clear and self-explanatory.
>> > It's subjective. As described above, the Angular convention contains all
>> > expressiveness of the customized one - it also has type and scope, and
>> > delimiter length is almost the same.
>> >
>> > Let's think of the adoption of each convention:
>> >
>> > 1. Customized conventions: better to follow for developers who already
>> use
>> > it.
>> > 2. Angular convention is a popular standard so that:
>> > (1) It's well-known by _new_ developers. Just tell them we are using
>> > Conventional Commits.
>> > (2) Better toolchain support. This time we're lucky
>> > that action-semantic-pull-request allows you to customize headerPattern.
>> > But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the
>> toolchain
>> > built around it, such as semantic release[1]. Also, Conventional Commits
>> > have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may
>> not
>> > want it later, shall we customize it further then?
>> >
>> > +1 for Angular convention.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > tison.
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/semantic-release/semantic-release
>> >
>> >
>> > Qiang Huang <qi...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 12:15写道：
>> >
>> >> I agree that the customized one is better. +1 on the customized one.
>> >>
>> >> Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com> 于2022年8月12日周五 10:51写道：
>> >>
>> >> > +1 on the customized one.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers
>> >> > momo-jun
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> BR,
>> >> Qiang Huang
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Yu <li...@apache.org>.
Hi tison,
Thanks for your suggestions!
> But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the
toolchain
built around it, such as semantic release[1].
Our customized convention can use the semantic release tool as well.
> Also, Conventional Commits
have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may not
want it later, shall we customize it further then?
- BREAKING CHANGE: yes, we can customize it based on Conventional Commits,
eg, [feat][broker]! Add xxx
- REVERT: [revert] belongs to [type] in our rule [1]
We can change it if it does not make sense.
I'll initiate an official discussion on these details and the definition of
[type][scope] in another independent email.
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
Yu and mangoGoForward
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 12:10 AM tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To clarify, I don't have a strong feeling about either convention.
> According to the reason above, I'd prefer the Angular convention, while +0
> for the customized convention.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 23:40写道：
>
> > Technically, the regexp of both conventions are:
> >
> > * Angular convention - /^(\w*)(?:\((.*)\))?!?: (.*)$/
> > * Customized conventions - /^\[(\w*)\](?:\[(.*)\])?: (.*)$/
> >
> > So, there're technically equal from the customized convention
> perspective,
> > or the Angular convention contains all expressiveness of the customized
> one.
> >
> > > It makes PR titles more clear and self-explanatory.
> > It's subjective. As described above, the Angular convention contains all
> > expressiveness of the customized one - it also has type and scope, and
> > delimiter length is almost the same.
> >
> > Let's think of the adoption of each convention:
> >
> > 1. Customized conventions: better to follow for developers who already
> use
> > it.
> > 2. Angular convention is a popular standard so that:
> > (1) It's well-known by _new_ developers. Just tell them we are using
> > Conventional Commits.
> > (2) Better toolchain support. This time we're lucky
> > that action-semantic-pull-request allows you to customize headerPattern.
> > But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the
> toolchain
> > built around it, such as semantic release[1]. Also, Conventional Commits
> > have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may not
> > want it later, shall we customize it further then?
> >
> > +1 for Angular convention.
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/semantic-release/semantic-release
> >
> >
> > Qiang Huang <qi...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 12:15写道：
> >
> >> I agree that the customized one is better. +1 on the customized one.
> >>
> >> Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com> 于2022年8月12日周五 10:51写道：
> >>
> >> > +1 on the customized one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >> > momo-jun
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> BR,
> >> Qiang Huang
> >>
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
To clarify, I don't have a strong feeling about either convention.
According to the reason above, I'd prefer the Angular convention, while +0
for the customized convention.
Best,
tison.
tison <wa...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 23:40写道：
> Technically, the regexp of both conventions are:
>
> * Angular convention - /^(\w*)(?:\((.*)\))?!?: (.*)$/
> * Customized conventions - /^\[(\w*)\](?:\[(.*)\])?: (.*)$/
>
> So, there're technically equal from the customized convention perspective,
> or the Angular convention contains all expressiveness of the customized one.
>
> > It makes PR titles more clear and self-explanatory.
> It's subjective. As described above, the Angular convention contains all
> expressiveness of the customized one - it also has type and scope, and
> delimiter length is almost the same.
>
> Let's think of the adoption of each convention:
>
> 1. Customized conventions: better to follow for developers who already use
> it.
> 2. Angular convention is a popular standard so that:
> (1) It's well-known by _new_ developers. Just tell them we are using
> Conventional Commits.
> (2) Better toolchain support. This time we're lucky
> that action-semantic-pull-request allows you to customize headerPattern.
> But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the toolchain
> built around it, such as semantic release[1]. Also, Conventional Commits
> have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may not
> want it later, shall we customize it further then?
>
> +1 for Angular convention.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
> [1] https://github.com/semantic-release/semantic-release
>
>
> Qiang Huang <qi...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 12:15写道：
>
>> I agree that the customized one is better. +1 on the customized one.
>>
>> Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com> 于2022年8月12日周五 10:51写道：
>>
>> > +1 on the customized one.
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > momo-jun
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> BR,
>> Qiang Huang
>>
>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
Technically, the regexp of both conventions are:
* Angular convention - /^(\w*)(?:\((.*)\))?!?: (.*)$/
* Customized conventions - /^\[(\w*)\](?:\[(.*)\])?: (.*)$/
So, there're technically equal from the customized convention perspective,
or the Angular convention contains all expressiveness of the customized one.
> It makes PR titles more clear and self-explanatory.
It's subjective. As described above, the Angular convention contains all
expressiveness of the customized one - it also has type and scope, and
delimiter length is almost the same.
Let's think of the adoption of each convention:
1. Customized conventions: better to follow for developers who already use
it.
2. Angular convention is a popular standard so that:
(1) It's well-known by _new_ developers. Just tell them we are using
Conventional Commits.
(2) Better toolchain support. This time we're lucky
that action-semantic-pull-request allows you to customize headerPattern.
But following the Conventional Commits will ensure we can use the toolchain
built around it, such as semantic release[1]. Also, Conventional Commits
have a standard to name a BREAKING CHANGE and a REVERT. We may or may not
want it later, shall we customize it further then?
+1 for Angular convention.
Best,
tison.
[1] https://github.com/semantic-release/semantic-release
Qiang Huang <qi...@gmail.com> 于2022年8月14日周日 12:15写道：
> I agree that the customized one is better. +1 on the customized one.
>
> Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com> 于2022年8月12日周五 10:51写道：
>
> > +1 on the customized one.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > momo-jun
> >
> >
>
> --
> BR,
> Qiang Huang
>
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Qiang Huang <qi...@gmail.com>.
I agree that the customized one is better. +1 on the customized one.
Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com> 于2022年8月12日周五 10:51写道：
> +1 on the customized one.
>
>
> Cheers
> momo-jun
>
>
--
BR,
Qiang Huang
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Jun M <mo...@hotmail.com>.
+1 on the customized one.
Cheers
momo-jun
Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
Posted by Alexander Preuss <al...@streamnative.io.INVALID>.
Hi together,
Thank you for driving this topic!
I agree that our customized convention is better than the Angular one.
+1 on the customized one
Best,
Alex
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:02 AM Yu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1], we've
> got many different suggestions on implementation details. Let's discuss
> them one by one.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Discussion topic:
>
> For PR titles, which convention should we follow?
> - Angular convention [2] - Our existing convention (it's customized based
> on Angular) [3] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The differences between Angular and ours
> are: 1. Definition 1.1 Property - Angular: [type] is required, [scope] is
> optional - Ours: [type] and [scope] are required 1.2 Content - Angular: ci,
> test, and docs belong to [type] - Ours: ci, test, and docs belong to
> [scope] because
> I think [type] defines "what action do you make" (eg.
> add/delete/update/...),
> while [scope] defines "where do you make changes". 2. Punctuation -
> Angular: parenthesis and exclaim points are used - Ours: brackets are used
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparison examples Taking existing Pulsar PR titles as
> examples: Example 1 - Angular: fix: Filter out already deleted entries
> again before sending messages to consumers - Ours: [fix][broker] Filter out
> already deleted entries again before sending messages to consumers Example
> 2 - Angular: ci: add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project -
> Ours: [feat][ci] Add flaky test issues and PRs to flaky test project
> Example 3 - Angular: docs: Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc -
> Ours: [improve][doc] Document configuration added by PIP-145 doc
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I prefer our customized convention because: - It makes PR
> titles more clear and self-explanatory. - No need to change users' habits
> since many people in the community have followed and gotten used to it for
> several months [4]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Feel free to comment. Thank you!
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJlUNAHnYAbvu9UtEgCrn_oVTnVc1M5nHC19x1bFab4/edit?pli=1
>
> [2]
> https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-message-header
> [3]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d8Pw6ZbWk-_pCKdOmdvx9rnhPiyuxwq60_TrD68d7BA/edit?pli=1#bookmark=id.y8943h392zno
> [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls
>
> Yu, Max, mangoGoForward
>