Simplify the current PR Template

[vedran-kasalica]

Checklist before submitting an issue

• I have checked the existing issues and couldn't find an issue about this bug.

Issue details

The current pull request (PR) template feels somewhat convoluted. While all the points are relevant, it could be streamlined to simplify the development process.

One potential improvement is shortening the initial checklist. For example, the following two points could be combined into one:

• I have read the contribution guidelines
• My code follows the style guidelines of this project

As far as I understand, the style guidelines are referenced in contribution guidelines.

@NLeSC/python-template-nlesc-team suggestions are welcome!

[egpbos]

I fully agree, and would suggest to also reduce the issue template; in particular, the checkbox to check for existing issues can be removed, because it adds an unnecessary barrier and doesn't really help*.

* This is a duplicate of #643 😉 This means you have not checked the existing issues, as you indicated 😇 Sorry, don't want to be mean and pedantic, just saying: apparently it doesn't work 😄

[egpbos]

To be more concrete: my suggestion would be to move the entire PR template's contents to the Contribution guidelines (and make sure to remove duplicate info). The remaining PR template can simply be:

<!--
Please describe what your PR adds and why.

Make sure you read and follow the contributing guidelines!
https://github.com/NLeSC/python-template/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

[vedran-kasalica]

I fully agree, and would suggest to also reduce the issue template; in particular, the checkbox to check for existing issues can be removed, because it adds an unnecessary barrier and doesn't really help*.

* This is a duplicate of #643 😉 This means you have not checked the existing issues, as you indicated 😇 Sorry, don't want to be mean and pedantic, just saying: apparently it doesn't work 😄

Oops. I searched for it, by filtering on template (which gave me way too many issues to carefully read all of them) so I went for PR. I forgot to type the long version of PR. So technically it was the quality of my search that was bad, not the check or the template 😅

I like the fact that there was a check that reminded me to search for an issue though. The issue template is quite small, just one checkbox and the description. Maybe the reminder doesn't have to be a checkbox, but a simple text as the one you suggest for the PR template.

[egpbos]

If you think it is helpful, then I agree that's the best way to go! And sorry again for the wise-ass comment 😄

[vedran-kasalica]

The comment was fine, no worries! :)

Issue Templates

About the Issue template, I am not sure if a checkbox is better than a simple text that the user deletes. A simple text might be less intimidating to a new contributor (there is no explicit statement).

I also have a comment about the issue descriptions, Related to the generated package, Related to the template itself and Blank issue all generate the same text:

## Issue details
<!--
Whatever you write here must have something to do with the code you get from running `copier`.
-->

I would expect this to be the description of issues Related to the generated package, but issues Related to the template itself and Blank issue are more generic, e.g., this issue, issues regarding the documentation, etc.

Should we make a new issue for this or extend this one to include PR and Issue Templates?

PR Template

Finally, it would be nice to get more opinions on the PR template.