Add issue and PR templates

[tobiasdiez]

📚 Description

Improved version based on https://github.com/sagemath/sage-gh-templates-sandbox
Fixes sagemath/trac-to-github#86.

📝 Checklist

• I have linked an issue or discussion.
• I have created tests covering the changes.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

[dimpase]

@tobiasdiez - can you enable issues and PRs on your fork, just to see how this looks like in production?

[tobiasdiez]

@dimpase Sure, good idea, should have done this directly. For the PR template, this PR already uses it and you can test it now at tobiasdiez/sage@develop...tobiasdiez:sage:fix-netlify. For a new issue, have a look at https://github.com/tobiasdiez/sage/issues/new/choose

[dimpase]

lgtm

[dimpase]

I took the liberty to remove @mkoeppe from the reviewers list - just to streamline this one.

[roed314]

Lgtm; just fixed a typo.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 88.59% // Head: 88.59% // Decreases project coverage by -0.01% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (46cdc6c) compared to base (66b319b).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #34983      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    88.59%   88.59%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         2136     2136              
  Lines       396141   396141              
===========================================
- Hits        350948   350943       -5     
- Misses       45193    45198       +5     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/sage/crypto/util.py	91.37% <0.00%> (-5.18%)	⬇️
src/sage/interfaces/qsieve.py	71.30% <0.00%> (-2.61%)	⬇️
src/sage/modular/local_comp/liftings.py	98.33% <0.00%> (-1.67%)	⬇️
src/sage/graphs/generators/random.py	91.09% <0.00%> (-1.55%)	⬇️
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/hom_frobenius.py	96.34% <0.00%> (-1.22%)	⬇️
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/hom_velusqrt.py	94.48% <0.00%> (-0.79%)	⬇️
src/sage/coding/channel.py	97.10% <0.00%> (-0.73%)	⬇️
src/sage/graphs/graph_plot.py	84.33% <0.00%> (-0.57%)	⬇️
src/sage/modular/arithgroup/congroup_gamma0.py	94.41% <0.00%> (-0.56%)	⬇️
src/sage/sets/integer_range.py	91.41% <0.00%> (-0.51%)	⬇️
... and 22 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[dimpase]

I'm merging this too - it makes creation of PRs and issues more meaningful and documented. Nothing else is affected.

[tobiasdiez]

Thanks!

Do you think we should also give hints for good PR titles, e.g. "Fix build error of scipy" instead of Fixes #<number>?

[dimpase]

Do you think we should also give hints for good PR titles, e.g. "Fix build error of scipy" instead of Fixes #<number>?

indeed, can you fix this?

[tobiasdiez]

Sure: #35022

By the way, if you "squash" a PR instead of merging it, you normally get a nicer more linear commit history in the develop branch.

[mezzarobba]

Some approved PRs, e.g., #35064, don't show as such in the list. I wonder if this is because of the checklist in the PR template, which github interprets as a list of tasks.

[tobiasdiez]

You mean the missing "Approved" in the list? This comes from the fact that github only takes reviews from people with write/maintainer rights into account when computing that. And in #35064, Travis has "only" triage rights. This is also the reason why his review is only a gray tick, while Matthias review at #35060 is a green tick.

[mezzarobba]

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for the noise.