Add default issue templates

[btlogy]

Refers to LeastAuthority/it-ops#142

Add default issue templates for bug report, feature request and task. Those 3 templates should only be available in the repositories owned by LeastAuthority that do NOT have ANY existing issue template already defined.

In addition, it should still be possible for a contributor of those project to create blank issues.

Types of changes

• Documentation or cosmetic update (not impacting the code)
• Bug-fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist

• Title of the PR is meaningful
• Description refers to an issue discussing the matter
• PR is appropriately sized

Thank you!

[meejah]

This looks like a "PR template" and not an example "Issue template" (copy-paste snafu?)

I think "tags" or "labels" are better for the "kind of ticket" ask above. I don't see anything else relevant to issues.

For me, an "issue template" is a barrier to contributing: it's something I have to read, understand and then act upon. So having to read 200+ words takes time. It's not clear that I'm "allowed" to delete it.

For long-term contributors or maintainers, it should be completely redundant: they should already know the norms of the project.

I can see the use-case for these things on extremely popular projects that get many bug-requests (or pull-requests) -- then it can save the limited time of core-contributors. For example, having to constantly ask followup questions for logs or versions of software etc. Unfortunately, we do not have that problem. Even if we did have this problem, I don't believe every project would want to solve it the same way (that is, with the same issue template). As evidence: the current projects that do have issue etc templates don't look very similar to me.

[btlogy]

This looks like a "PR template" and not an example "Issue template" (copy-paste snafu?)

Thank you for taking time to write this input @meejah

The description here above is indeed using a PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE (only to be use explicitly - see #4).
But the 3 files changed by this PR are all ISSUE_TEMPLATE.
Unless I did not understood your remark?

[btlogy]

I think "tags" or "labels" are better for the "kind of ticket" ask above. I don't see anything else relevant to issues.

For me, an "issue template" is a barrier to contributing: it's something I have to read, understand and then act upon. So having to read 200+ words takes time. It's not clear that I'm "allowed" to delete it.

For long-term contributors or maintainers, it should be completely redundant: they should already know the norms of the project.

I can see the use-case for these things on extremely popular projects that get many bug-requests (or pull-requests) -- then it can save the limited time of core-contributors. For example, having to constantly ask followup questions for logs or versions of software etc. Unfortunately, we do not have that problem. Even if we did have this problem, I don't believe every project would want to solve it the same way (that is, with the same issue template). As evidence: the current projects that do have issue etc templates don't look very similar to me.

Again, thank you for taking time to write this input @meejah
I value this a lot. I'd like to propose something that would cover most if not all of those concerns.
However, it will unlikely be applicable org-wide from this repository.

In short (to be longer discuss elsewhere):

• I think we could propose minimal templates for issues that would merely flag them with the right label (bug, enhancement and task or question...);
• Those would only contain a few lines: a comment line and max 5 section titles;
• In addition, we could propose an blank template to allow contributors to explicitly avoid the other templates (by default, it's kind of hidden).

I'll try to test/demonstrate what I mean elsewhere first.

[meejah]

Is it possible to do this in an "opt-in" fashion?

My main issue with the original wasn't that I necessarily have a problem with all templates in all situations: it was that templates suddenly appeared in repos I maintain without any discussion (or, from my perspective, any immediate need).

So having some "starter" templates for repos that want to try them out might be nice indeed -- but IIUC putting them here means they will appear on all our repositories (and, more importantly, any future changes would also immediately appear in those places too). Is that part correct?

I really don't see a way to get to viable org-wide templates, given the widely different things we work on (including e.g. public vs private repos etc).