Validate PULL_REQUEST.md Linking Issues section #21

Closed
opened 2026-09-07 15:42:31 +00:00 by Xeplosion · 1 comment
Owner

Where is the problem?

In the PULL_REQUEST.md document on the docs branch, in the Linking Issues section.

Type of documentation issue

Unclear — the documentation exists but is confusing or incomplete

What should change?

Documentation should be updated to accurately reflect the process of linking issue(s) to a pull request.

Source of truth / validation

The process should be performed on an active pull request, and observations made during that process should be used to validate the existing documentation or gain an understanding of what changes need to be made.

Additional context

No response

Request checklist

  • I identified the documentation location or clearly described where the new documentation belongs
  • I described the intended corrected or improved content

Workflow lifecycle

Triage

  • Kind/ classification confirmed
  • Issue validity reviewed and appropriate Reviewed/ label assigned
  • Priority/ assigned when appropriate
  • Applicable Branch/ label(s) assigned when branch targeting matters
  • Information requirements resolved; no Status/Needs More Info remains
  • Status/Needs Triage removed before leaving Triage

Backlog

  • Issue is confirmed valid and accepted into the project backlog

To Do

  • Scope and expected outcome are sufficiently defined
  • Known prerequisites, dependencies, and required decisions are resolved or understood
  • Work has been deliberately selected as upcoming work

In Progress

  • Assignee or active owner identified when appropriate
  • Forgejo timer started when time tracking provides meaningful value
  • Relevant implementation, research, or work notes recorded as needed
  • Forgejo timer stopped when active work ends, pauses, or becomes blocked

Review Gate

  • Review requirement assessed based on complexity, criticality, reversibility, and impact
  • If review is required: moved to In Review and appropriate testing / validation performed
  • If review is required: review comment records what was reviewed, how it was validated, findings, and outcome
  • If review is not required: rationale is evident from the low-risk nature of the change

Completed

  • Acceptance criteria / intended outcome satisfied
  • Related PRs, commits, documentation, or external changes linked where applicable
  • Final resolution comment explains what changed, how the issue was resolved, and how it was verified
  • Follow-up work split into separate issues where appropriate
  • Any Forgejo timer is stopped and recorded time is final
  • Issue moved to Completed and closed
### Where is the problem? In the PULL_REQUEST.md document on the docs branch, in the `Linking Issues` section. ### Type of documentation issue Unclear — the documentation exists but is confusing or incomplete ### What should change? Documentation should be updated to accurately reflect the process of linking issue(s) to a pull request. ### Source of truth / validation The process should be performed on an active pull request, and observations made during that process should be used to validate the existing documentation or gain an understanding of what changes need to be made. ### Additional context _No response_ ### Request checklist - [x] I identified the documentation location or clearly described where the new documentation belongs - [x] I described the intended corrected or improved content ### Workflow lifecycle ### Triage - [x] `Kind/` classification confirmed - [x] Issue validity reviewed and appropriate `Reviewed/` label assigned - [x] `Priority/` assigned when appropriate - [x] Applicable `Branch/` label(s) assigned when branch targeting matters - [x] Information requirements resolved; no `Status/Needs More Info` remains - [x] `Status/Needs Triage` removed before leaving Triage ### Backlog - [x] Issue is confirmed valid and accepted into the project backlog ### To Do - [x] Scope and expected outcome are sufficiently defined - [x] Known prerequisites, dependencies, and required decisions are resolved or understood - [x] Work has been deliberately selected as upcoming work ### In Progress - [x] Assignee or active owner identified when appropriate - [x] Forgejo timer started when time tracking provides meaningful value - [x] Relevant implementation, research, or work notes recorded as needed - [x] Forgejo timer stopped when active work ends, pauses, or becomes blocked ### Review Gate - [x] Review requirement assessed based on complexity, criticality, reversibility, and impact - [x] If review is required: moved to **In Review** and appropriate testing / validation performed - [x] If review is required: review comment records what was reviewed, how it was validated, findings, and outcome - [x] If review is not required: rationale is evident from the low-risk nature of the change ### Completed - [x] Acceptance criteria / intended outcome satisfied - [x] Related PRs, commits, documentation, or external changes linked where applicable - [x] Final resolution comment explains what changed, how the issue was resolved, and how it was verified - [x] Follow-up work split into separate issues where appropriate - [x] Any Forgejo timer is stopped and recorded time is final - [x] Issue moved to **Completed** and closed
Xeplosion stopped working 2026-09-07 16:00:32 +00:00
17 minutes 37 seconds
Xeplosion stopped working 2026-09-07 16:30:21 +00:00
2 minutes 11 seconds
Author
Owner

After review, the existing documentation was found to be adequate.

After review, the existing documentation was found to be adequate.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Total time spent: 19 minutes 48 seconds
Xeplosion
19 minutes 48 seconds
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
XeplosionTechnologies/.forgejo#21
No description provided.