Skip to content

Conversation

@kdumontnu
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #15996

@noerw
Copy link
Member

noerw commented May 27, 2021

Hmm, not sure this is an improvement. Maybe do it like github, and show a "new issue" button on PR page & vice versa as on issue page?
edit: Seems like I'm hallucinating and GH doesn't do that.. but would still be neat imho

@GiteaBot GiteaBot added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label May 27, 2021
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 27, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #15998 (5b34aec) into main (b4d1059) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 75.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15998      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   44.02%   44.05%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         682      682              
  Lines       82407    82412       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits        36282    36309      +27     
+ Misses      40218    40204      -14     
+ Partials     5907     5899       -8     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
modules/auth/sso/reverseproxy.go 8.51% <0.00%> (ø)
services/repository/generate.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
modules/web/middleware/cookie.go 64.65% <66.66%> (+7.75%) ⬆️
modules/markup/markdown/goldmark.go 58.84% <70.00%> (+0.62%) ⬆️
modules/auth/sso/basic.go 44.64% <100.00%> (ø)
modules/auth/sso/sso.go 36.66% <100.00%> (ø)
modules/markup/sanitizer.go 88.88% <100.00%> (ø)
modules/setting/indexer.go 91.42% <100.00%> (ø)
modules/setting/queue.go 67.92% <100.00%> (ø)
routers/repo/pull.go 31.15% <100.00%> (+0.07%) ⬆️
... and 8 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 461915d...5b34aec. Read the comment docs.

@kdumontnu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hmm, not sure this is an improvement.

This actually came as feedback from some of our users asking why there was an option to create a "New Pull Request" when looking at someone else's PR. I don't see a case where anyone would need to do that... In general, I think gitea suffers from a bit "everything including the kitchen sink". This is a clear example - lets keep the interface clean and simple.

show a "new issue" button on PR page & vice versa as on issue page?
edit: Seems like I'm hallucinating and GH doesn't do that.. but would still be neat imho

To your other point I also don't see a case where users will want to create an issue from a PR (we do have the "reference in new issue option" btw). From a UX perspective these are two different workflows - no need to link them together.

@GiteaBot GiteaBot added lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels May 27, 2021
@GiteaBot GiteaBot added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels May 29, 2021
@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented May 29, 2021

Please rebase

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented May 29, 2021

make L-G-T-M work

@lunny lunny merged commit 2a99804 into go-gitea:main May 29, 2021
AbdulrhmnGhanem pushed a commit to kitspace/gitea that referenced this pull request Aug 10, 2021
@go-gitea go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 19, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Bug] Active Pull Requests Should Not Have Option For "New Pull Request"

6 participants