Update changelog #5544
Update changelog #5544
Conversation
github-actions
bot
force-pushed
the
update-changelog
branch
from
6227309 to
8f9b5b3
Compare
| ### Tropical Geometry | ||
|
|
||
| ### Changes related to the package GAP | ||
|
|
||
| ### Changes related to the package Hecke | ||
|
|
||
| ### Changes related to the package Singular |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why are there empty headers here without any content?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This happens when a PR was tagged with a topic label, but not with a type label. The script finds non zero number of things under tropical geometry, so generates a heading for it. But it never finds a type label, so, neither the secondary heading, nor the PR itself is printed here. They end up in the TODO section. IMO, leaving it like this might be fine, so, we know where to (manually) insert something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd say it's better then to move these things with "missing labels into the right topic section, but in subsection #### TODO: missing type label or so
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| - [#5267](https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/pull/5267) Add `order_bound` keyword argument to `subgroup_classes` | ||
| - [#5284](https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/pull/5284) Implement chamber counting algorithm for toric line bundles | ||
| - [#5288](https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/pull/5288) Add `p_rump` for `GAPGroup` and extend `torsion_subgroup` for `GAPGroup` and `WeylGroup` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This has a "topic: groups" label, but is not sorted into the appropriate section above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be fixed whenever #5279 is merged
Maybe it was unwise to add patches for this into that PR, from a keeping PRs on topic point of view, but its currently probably the fastest way of patching this.
|
Looking at some of the entries in the "TODO" categories, I realize that I don't know how many or what labels a pull request needs to make the script happy.
Is this correct? Is it written down somewhere? I so far I followed the two-label-approach from https://docs.oscar-system.org/stable/DeveloperDocumentation/changelog/ but apparently that's not enough anymore? |
As I noted in #5544 (comment), there is currently some issue with how these things are put into categories. I would assume that this also affects your examples |
github-actions
bot
force-pushed
the
update-changelog
branch
from
8f9b5b3 to
06019bf
Compare
Your impression should be correct. Can you look at the new changelog ( 06019bf ), and if there is still unexpected behaviour, point out the exact PRs which are miscategorised ?
The two kinds of labels (topics, and types) have been expanded upon, but this is still in the dev docs, not yet in stable. https://docs.oscar-system.org/dev/DeveloperDocumentation/changelog/#Multi-level-topics |
|
|
||
| ### **TODO** insufficient labels for automatic classification | ||
|
|
||
| The following PRs only have a topic label assigned to them, not a PR type. Either assign a type label to them (e.g., `enhancement`), or manually move them to the general section of the topic section in the changelog. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you instead put the into their respective general section, but with a todo note each? I think it is easier to just manually remove todo notes than moving things around in this file.
I am asking because I see a bunch of things here, that don't fit into any subsection, e.g. updates of dependencies
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Day's event have started. I shall look at it again today at night.
Okay, sorry, I did not look at the most recent documentation. So the gist is that every pull request now needs three labels? And wouldn't it be good to have all the "type" labels start with "type:" and possibly all have the same colour? |
Yes that's how it has been since we introduced this system. (Well, you can get away with one label if it is
I don't want this for the colors: both "bug" and "enhancement" are types, but one is red and the other not, and I'd like to stay it that way. Wouldn't mind for them to share a common prefix, though. But perhaps we can not use "type" but rather something else, like "kind" or "category" -- the word "type" already is used heavily in our code and I'd like to avoid yet another overload of the meaning. Regarding the topics, note that they have either prefix |
4 participants
Automated changes by create-pull-request GitHub action