doc: make template more concise, add ref to CONTRIBUTING.md on template

[luisschwab]

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Documentation update
• Test
• Other:

Which crates are being modified?

• floresta-chain
• floresta-cli
• floresta-common
• floresta-compact-filters
• floresta-electrum
• floresta-watch-only
• floresta-wire
• floresta
• Other: not a crate: .github/

Description

Made the PR template cleaner: the description section should be enough (Which aspect of floresta its being addresed? is redundant).

Added CONTRIBUTING.md to checklist section

Fixed typos on CONTIBUTING.md

Checklist

• I've signed all my commits
• I ran just lint
• I ran cargo test
• I've checked the integration tests
• I've followed the contribution guidelines
• I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR (if any)

PS: this PR is using the new template

[jaoleal]

Nack.

The positional changes just makes worse to make a superficial read of the PR.

Which aspect of floresta its being addresed? is redundant

No, its not... This project has more code than quantity of people reviewing it and the section "Which aspect of floresta its being addresed?" lets you know the complications of the code being added and how dangerous the codebase of that specified module is... If none of the other sections gives this information without the need of reading the code, its not redundant.

the description section should be enough

Description is an open text field and the understanding, of the contributor, about whats being addressed can differ depending on how familiar the contributor is with the codebase... Also, most contributors, as you can see from the contribution history, are not native English speakers and this can lead to difficulties in writing and understanding for both contributor and reviewer.

So, check boxes makes life easier for everyone.

[luisschwab]

Description is an open text field and the understanding, of the contributor, about whats being addressed can differ depending on how familiar the contributor is with the codebase...

Do you mean from the reviewer perspective? Because if not, I think that if someone makes a PR they should be able to explain their work.

most contributors, as you can see from the contribution history, are not native English speakers

Google translate is more than enough for this.

[Davidson-Souza]

I think there are some nice changes here. Could you bring this section back and not remove the sample title from issues?

[luisschwab]

@Davidson-Souza do you mean the "Which aspect of floresta its being addresed?" section?

[Davidson-Souza]

@Davidson-Souza do you mean the "Which aspect of floresta its being addresed?" section?

Yes

[luisschwab]

Done. I added the individual crate names:

+### Which crates are being modified?
+
+- [ ] floresta-chain
+- [ ] floresta-cli
+- [ ] floresta-common
+- [ ] floresta-compact-filters
+- [ ] floresta-electrum
+- [ ] floresta-watch-only
+- [ ] floresta-wire
+- [ ] floresta
+- [ ] Other: <!-- Please describe it -->.

[jaoleal]

Do you mean from the reviewer perspective? Because if not, I think that if someone makes a PR they should be able to explain their work.

Its totally possible to contribute without knowing all the project in details, isnt it ?

I understand, the point is to make the template more concise but, few lines with check boxes will not hurt anyone and will help reviewers to provide better and faster reviews.

Done. I added the individual crate names:

Nice but, "Which aspect of floresta its being addresed?" is not about the crates and yes about the functionality being changed... Still a working in progress to separate things in their proper crates here.

Also, I see a way to make it more concise to complement the objective of this PR.

What you think about:

+ ### Which aspect of LibFloresta its being addresed?

+ - [ ] Blockchain;  <!--  Block validation and management. -->
+ - [ ] Wire;  <!--  Communication and control over other nodes. -->
+ - [ ] I/O or Database  <!--  Control over the data flow for the OS. -->
+ - [ ] Other: <!-- Please describe it -->.

Smaller but still expressive.

[Davidson-Souza]

I think I prefer the crate names. Some projects (like rust-bitcoin) even have some automation to tag which crates are changing on a PR.

ACK 2c7783b

[jaoleal]

I think I prefer the crate names.

But we can know which crates were changed by the git diff... So no extra section is needed at all

[Davidson-Souza]

I think I prefer the crate names.

But we can know which crates were changed by the git diff... So no extra section is needed at all

The same could be said about the aforementioned example. These information are meant to be read before doing any git stuff (otherwise I can figure out myself)

[luisschwab]

Indeed

[jaoleal]

The same could be said about the #357 (comment). These information are meant to be read before doing any git stuff (otherwise I can figure out myself)

Kinda... The objetive that i had in mind for this section was to understand how much the PR can be dangerous and what feature will be aftected by i and i dont believe that showing the which crates was changed can tell me that... BUT, i saw some people oppening PRs using this section and no one used it properly, at least not in the way i was expecting when i proposed this, which makes the whole section useless.

Marking by crates is certainly more intuitive.

ACK c7756d1