.github: add a template for pull requests requesting testing info

[peterbarker]

No description provided.

[tpwrules]

Please make “logs attached/available” a separate checkbox. Most PRs probably don’t have them and I think doing enough testing to check the box is still a good data point even if it’s not in the form of a bin log.

It should always be acceptable to ask for logs though, and a good PR should of course make generating one easy!

[hunt0r]

Suggested change

	## Testing (your PR may be summarily closed without these)
	## Testing (your PR may be summarily closed without these)
	<!-- In addition to checking the box, describe the details -->

[hunt0r]

(IDK why I can't resolve this 😦 . Fine with me to not do it.)

[Georacer]

Can we add a "## Summary" section, as a TLDR?

A 2-screen description can be a bit much at first sight.

[peterbarker]

I've added something. I was tempted to have it be ## TLDR :-)

[hunt0r]

[optional] Is it worth clarifying how the expected "one or two line summary" is distinct from the title? I expect that to already be a one-line summary.

Instead, perhaps the PR description should have info like:

• What goal(s) the PR accomplishes (if not obvious from the title).
• All github issue(s) it is resolving / related to.
• Other PRs it relates to (e.g. PR chain)
• Summarize the expected changes in behavior (if not obvious). The most common expected-statement is that the PR should not change user-facing behavior.

I like to incentivize PRs to be so small, single-purposed, and clear that the description could reasonably be "does what title says". (Of course that's omitted because it's tautological.) That's a mark of quality!

Just sharing my opinion from experience. No problem to ignore this feedback.

[peterbarker]

Yeah, I really don't want this to get too complicated. Especially as this is really supposed to be a minimal you-have-tested-this,right? test.

Our issue template is more complicated and it's a pretty awful/repetitive process to create an issue a lot of the time.