Skip to content

Update contributing guidelines#2726

Open
RDaxini wants to merge 7 commits intopvlib:mainfrom
RDaxini:contributing
Open

Update contributing guidelines#2726
RDaxini wants to merge 7 commits intopvlib:mainfrom
RDaxini:contributing

Conversation

@RDaxini
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@RDaxini RDaxini commented Mar 30, 2026

  • Closes Update contributing guidelines: solar energy experience, GSoC, avenue to close PRs #2716
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines
  • I attest that all AI-generated material has been vetted for accuracy and is in compliance with the pvlib license
  • Tests added
  • Updates entries in docs/sphinx/source/reference for API changes.
  • Adds description and name entries in the appropriate "what's new" file in docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew for all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with :issue:`num` or this Pull Request with :pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with :ghuser:`user`).
  • New code is fully documented. Includes numpydoc compliant docstrings, examples, and comments where necessary.
  • Pull request is nearly complete and ready for detailed review.
  • Maintainer: Appropriate GitHub Labels (including remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.

@RDaxini RDaxini added this to the v0.15.1 milestone Mar 30, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@cwhanse cwhanse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some reactions

@RDaxini RDaxini marked this pull request as ready for review March 30, 2026 20:39
@RDaxini RDaxini changed the title [WIP] Update contributing guidelines Update contributing guidelines Mar 30, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@kandersolar kandersolar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine with me. One lazy question below

Comment on lines +22 to +23
* Every pull request (PR) should address one or more open issues. The PR should
be outlined in the issue discussion.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will we hold ourselves (the maintainers) to this standard? Many of my PRs do not close any issue, and I would prefer to retain that freedom. Requiring an issue for what a maintainer believes is a straightforward, non-controversial PR would (IMHO) often be repository clutter and notification noise for little benefit.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about "Pull requests should address one or more open issues." Does that create flexibility for maintainers?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could add "... unless it has been discussed with a maintainer..." somewhere in there.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update contributing guidelines: solar energy experience, GSoC, avenue to close PRs

4 participants