These are noisy, and in general I'd prefer people to focus on the
quality of the resulting system; not the size of the diff. (Which may
require deliberately making changes larger)
## Context
<!-- What does this PR do, and why? How is it expected to impact users?
Not just what changed, but what motivated it and why this approach.
Link to Linear issue (e.g., ENG-123) or GitHub issue (e.g., Closes#456)
if one exists — helps with traceability. -->
## How to Review
<!-- Help reviewers focus their attention:
- For small PRs: note what to focus on (e.g., "error handling in
foo.rs")
- For large PRs (>400 LOC): provide a guided tour — numbered list of
files/commits to read in order. (The `large-pr` label is applied
automatically.)
- See the review process guidelines for comment conventions -->
## Self-Review Checklist
<!-- Check before requesting review: -->
- [ ] I've reviewed my own diff for quality, security, and reliability
- [ ] Unsafe blocks (if any) have justifying comments
- [ ] The content is consistent with the [UI/UX
checklist](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#uiux-checklist)
- [ ] Tests cover the new/changed behavior
- [ ] Performance impact has been considered and is acceptable
Release Notes:
- N/A
## Summary
Deploy updated `assign-reviewers.yml` from
[codeowner-coordinator#83](https://github.com/zed-industries/codeowner-coordinator/pull/83):
- Switch trigger from `pull_request` to `pull_request_target` to support
fork PRs and fix `author_association` misclassification bug (org members
reported as `COLLABORATOR`)
- Remove `author_association` filter and fork gate — reviewer
assignments are inherently scoped to org team members by the GitHub
Teams API
- Remove `--min-association member` from script invocation
- Add `SECURITY INVARIANTS` comment block documenting
`pull_request_target` safety requirements
- Add concurrency guard to prevent duplicate runs per PR
- Add `--require-hashes` + SHA256 pin for pyyaml install
## Test plan
- [ ] Verify a fork PR triggers the workflow and receives team
assignment
- [ ] Verify a draft→ready PR triggers correctly
- [ ] Verify org member PRs continue to work
Release Notes:
- N/A
This PR changes how we ask users to draft up PRs and how release note
generation happens.
We no longer force the user to create the markdown URL link, but we do
ask them to use the `closes` [GitHub magic
word](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue)
to link the PR to an issue, so that the issue is closed automatically
when closing the PR.
As for the changelog release notes, we are no longer linking to the
issues, but the PR itself, which should contain the issue if a reader
wants to dive further back. This makes our output more consistent, as
every line will have a link, even if there is no issue associated, and
it removes the need for us to try to parse the issue url in the body to
try to correct mistakes in how they were forming Markdown urls - the PR
url is always returned in the request, which makes it easy. **Lastly,
it's just a lot less annoying to make the release notes.**
The new PR format will be:
```
Closes #ISSUE
Release Notes:
- Added/Fixed/Improved ...
```
The new script output format will be:
```
PR Title: theme: Use a non-transparent color for the fallback `title_bar.inactive_background`
Credit: ([#15709](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/15709); thanks [maxdeviant](https://github.com/maxdeviant))
Release Notes:
- linux: Changed the fallback color of `title_bar.inactive_background` to a non-transparent value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR Title: Skip over folded regions when iterating over multibuffer chunks
Credit: ([#15646](https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/15646); thanks [osiewicz](https://github.com/osiewicz))
Release Notes:
- Fixed poor performance when editing in the assistant panel after inserting large files using slash commands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
This still requires us to manually apply the credit line, but the line
is already fully formed, so this should still be faster than having to
manually create that line / fix any line where someone messed it up
(which was all the time). I would just automatically apply it to the
release notes, but sometimes we have multiple bullet points in a single
PR and no real structure is enforced, so I foresee doing anything
automatic breaking and needing manual adjustment.
Release Notes:
- N/A
This PR rearranges the PR template to move the line about including
screenshots or media up underneath the `Added/Fixed/Improved` section.
This makes it easier to delete one section or the other depending on
what kind of change you're making.
Release Notes:
- N/A
Making media up for release notes / tweets is becoming very time
consuming. I spoke to Max and suggested we ask users to submit media for
their features, to reduce what we need to produce for tweets and such. I
dont know if this is the best way to signal it; I don't like adding more
to the PR template, but I'm not sure of a better way at the moment.
Release Notes:
- N/a
I keep seeing people leave the wrapping parentheses, like `(Added)` in
their release notes.
This PR tries making it clearer that we only want *one* of "Added",
"Fixed", or "Improved".
Release Notes:
- N/A
This PR removes the placeholder description from the PR template, opting
to just leave empty space instead.
I've seen lots of instances where authors will not delete the
placeholder, and it ends up in Git history, which is not desirable.
Release Notes:
- N/A
