Add issue form for p5.js 2.0 RFC proposals and make associated updates #6748
Conversation
….yml The link to the RFC wasn't rendering for some reason, so I moved it into the markdown element. I also moved the description of the RFC into that element, so that the label for the RFC-sub-area checkboxes would be more concise.
Hopefully this works. It doesn't seem to be possible to preview the change before committing it.
…5.js-2.0-RFC-proposal.yml
The form felt a bit too long with that extra question, and it wasn't strictly necessary.
|
🎉 Thanks for opening this pull request! Please check out our contributing guidelines if you haven't already. And be sure to add yourself to the list of contributors on the readme page! |
I'm overwriting the previous commit, which simply fixed a typo in the README but somehow caused tests to fail. I'm putting the typo back in for now so that I can get back to the main work. I may come back later and investigate what caused the problem with the original commit.
…feature-enhancement.yml
This is the only heading specified explicitly in this form, but the new heading level is consistent with the headings in the other forms.
|
Okay, I've updated all the issue forms that required updates. I decided not to update the Found a Bug form; the original idea was to indicate that this form would be used for bugs in 1.x by stating that pull requests for the issue should be submitted to the main branch. However, I figure it may be helpful to sometimes use this form for bugs in the development version of p5.js 2.0 (in the dev 2.0 branch). I suppose contributors could use the input field for the p5.js version to indicate which branch is relevant. |
Adding a numerical prefix to the filename to make the p5.js 2.0 RFC proposal form appear at the top, since we're currently prioritizing these proposals.
Added a numerical prefix to the filename for the p5.js 2.0 RFC proposal form, to make it appear at the top of the template chooser, since we're prioritizing work toward p5.js 2.0 right now (and to give greater visibility to the effort, since it's new). Adding a numerical prefix to this filename as well, for consistency. I'm keeping the order of the original issue forms, since it's what existing contributors are already used to.
…ment.yml Added a numerical prefix to the filename for the p5.js 2.0 RFC proposal form, to make it appear at the top of the template chooser, since we're prioritizing work toward p5.js 2.0 right now (and to give greater visibility to the effort, since it's new). Adding a numerical prefix to this filename as well, for consistency. I'm keeping the order of the original issue forms, since it's what existing contributors are already used to.
Added a numerical prefix to the filename for the p5.js 2.0 RFC proposal form, to make it appear at the top of the template chooser, since we're prioritizing work toward p5.js 2.0 right now (and to give greater visibility to the effort, since it's new). Adding a numerical prefix to this filename as well, for consistency. I'm keeping the order of the original issue forms, since it's what existing contributors are already used to.
Added a numerical prefix to the filename for the p5.js 2.0 RFC proposal form, to make it appear at the top of the template chooser, since we're prioritizing work toward p5.js 2.0 right now (and to give greater visibility to the effort, since it's new). Adding a numerical prefix to this filename as well, for consistency. I'm keeping the order of the original issue forms, since it's what existing contributors are already used to.
|
Also, I realized that no changes actually need to be made to the config file. I did, however, prefix the filenames with numbers, in order to make the p5.js 2.0 RFC issue form appear first. (The order of the templates in the template chooser is based on filenames.) The idea is to give this new issue form greater visibility, since we're prioritizing work toward p5.js 2.0, and contributors may not know about it yet. |
|
@limzykenneth: As I was preparing this pull request, I fixed a typo in each of the issue forms, but one typo remains. Specifically, the checkbox for the internationalization sub-area was misspelled as "internalization," which could cause confusion, since "internalization" is actually a word that means something else. I fixed this in all of the issue forms, but I remembered seeing this typo in the README file for the p5.js repo as well. When I fixed that typo in commit e17ca92, it caused some tests to fail. It'd be nice to resolve this so that the sub-areas in the README are consistent with the sub-areas in the issue forms, but it may take me a little while to investigate the cause of the failure. Do you happen to know what's going on? If not, I'd be happy to have this PR merged now. A typo isn't important enough to hold up this whole process, and it could be dealt with separately. |
|
Looks good. Thanks! The typo issue we can have a look into it. |
Addresses #6678 (This pull request addresses a particular comment within the larger issue.)
Changes:
So far, I've created a draft of the new issue form for RFC proposals. I still need to make minor updates to the other issue forms and the config file.