docs(contributing): move community intake from issues to discussions#565
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
📜 Recent review details⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (6)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughMoved several issue-form templates into GitHub Discussions by adding three Discussion templates, removed five issue-form templates, updated issue template config to reference Discussion categories, rewrote CONTRIBUTING.md to a Discussions-first workflow with an AI policy pointer, and clarified README license to AGPL-3.0. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)(omitted — changes are documentation/templates and do not introduce new multi-component control flow) Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
✨ Simplify code
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
README.md (1)
250-251:⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 CriticalVerify issue template links are updated for discussions-first workflow.
The PR objectives state this PR is "removing the previous issue form templates" and "refreshes issue contact links to point users toward the new discussion paths." However, lines 250-251 still reference
bug_report.ymlandfeature_request.ymltemplates. If these templates are being removed in this PR, these links will be broken.Run the following script to check if the issue templates still exist after this PR's changes:
#!/bin/bash # Check if the issue templates referenced in README still exist echo "Checking for issue templates referenced in README..." fd -t f "bug_report.yml" .github/ fd -t f "feature_request.yml" .github/ echo -e "\nChecking for new discussion templates..." fd -t f -e yml -e yaml .github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/If the templates are being removed, the README should be updated to point to GitHub Discussions or other appropriate channels as indicated in the PR objectives.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@README.md` around lines 250 - 251, The README still links to issue templates "bug_report.yml" and "feature_request.yml" (lines containing "Report a bug" and "Request a feature"); update those links to the new discussions-first workflow (e.g., point "Report a bug" and "Request a feature" to the appropriate GitHub Discussions URLs or other new contact paths) or, if the templates remain, restore the referenced .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE files—ensure the markdown link targets are replaced so they no longer reference removed templates.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/q-a.yml (1)
53-53: Consider aligning the checkbox wording with other templates.The prerequisite checkbox here uses different wording than the equivalent checkboxes in
issue-triage.ymlandfeature-requests-ideas.yml:
issue-triage.ymlline 66: "I've searched existing discussions and this hasn't been reported yet"feature-requests-ideas.ymlline 55: "I've searched existing discussions and this hasn't been suggested yet"q-a.ymlline 53: "I can't find anything that looks like my problem"For consistency and clarity, consider matching the established pattern.
♻️ Proposed change for consistency
- - label: I've searched existing discussions and I can't find anything that looks like my problem + - label: I've searched existing discussions and this hasn't been asked yet required: true🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In @.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/q-a.yml at line 53, Update the checkbox label in q-a.yml that currently reads "I've searched existing discussions and I can't find anything that looks like my problem" to match the established phrasing used in other templates (e.g., "I've searched existing discussions and this hasn't been reported yet") so wording is consistent across issue-triage.yml and feature-requests-ideas.yml; locate the label string in .github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/q-a.yml and replace the text accordingly, preserving YAML formatting and any surrounding keys.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In @.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/issue-triage.yml:
- Line 9: Summary: The guidance line contains redundant markdown "our Q&A
[**Q&A**](...)" and should be simplified. Replace the duplicated/overformatted
fragment by using a single linked phrase such as "head over to our Q&A" (i.e.,
change the text that currently reads "head over to our Q&A
[**Q&A**](https://github.com/orgs/grimmory-tools/discussions/categories/q-a)" to
a single link like "head over to our Q&A
(https://github.com/orgs/grimmory-tools/discussions/categories/q-a)" or
"[Q&A](https://github.com/orgs/grimmory-tools/discussions/categories/q-a)"),
updating the string in .github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/issue-triage.yml where that
guidance line appears.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Around line 250-251: The README still links to issue templates
"bug_report.yml" and "feature_request.yml" (lines containing "Report a bug" and
"Request a feature"); update those links to the new discussions-first workflow
(e.g., point "Report a bug" and "Request a feature" to the appropriate GitHub
Discussions URLs or other new contact paths) or, if the templates remain,
restore the referenced .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE files—ensure the markdown link
targets are replaced so they no longer reference removed templates.
---
Nitpick comments:
In @.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/q-a.yml:
- Line 53: Update the checkbox label in q-a.yml that currently reads "I've
searched existing discussions and I can't find anything that looks like my
problem" to match the established phrasing used in other templates (e.g., "I've
searched existing discussions and this hasn't been reported yet") so wording is
consistent across issue-triage.yml and feature-requests-ideas.yml; locate the
label string in .github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/q-a.yml and replace the text
accordingly, preserving YAML formatting and any surrounding keys.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 931e8937-c9c6-4663-89d2-32080a9a8b03
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/feature-requests-ideas.yml.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/issue-triage.yml.github/DISCUSSION_TEMPLATE/q-a.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/documentation.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance.ymlCONTRIBUTING.mdREADME.md
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (5)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/documentation.yml
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/performance.yml
📜 Review details
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (5)
- GitHub Check: Test Suite / Backend Tests
- GitHub Check: Test Suite / Frontend Tests
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
- GitHub Check: Frontend Lint Threshold Check
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (1)
📚 Learning: 2026-04-02T09:25:48.330Z
Learnt from: balazs-szucs
Repo: grimmory-tools/grimmory PR: 334
File: booklore-api/src/main/java/org/booklore/service/reader/EpubReaderService.java:402-407
Timestamp: 2026-04-02T09:25:48.330Z
Learning: In grimmory-tools/grimmory, before commenting on any file processing code (epub or pdf), always verify the current state of the relevant upstream grimmory libraries: `grimmory-tools/epub4j` (for epub) and `grimmory-tools/PDFium4j` (for pdf). These custom libraries may have different APIs, capabilities, and limitations compared to the third-party libraries they replace. Issues about streaming, buffering, or API surface may need to be filed/addressed in those upstream repos rather than in grimmory itself.
Applied to files:
CONTRIBUTING.md
🪛 LanguageTool
CONTRIBUTING.md
[grammar] ~162-~162: Ensure spelling is correct
Context: ...not unreviewed output from a tool. The Grimmory project has clear rules for AI usage. P...
(QB_NEW_EN_ORTHOGRAPHY_ERROR_IDS_1)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
README.md (1)
262-262: LGTM! Clearer license reference.Explicitly naming the AGPL-3.0 license is more informative and concise than the previous generic reference to "the LICENSE file."
CONTRIBUTING.md (1)
1-163: Excellent documentation of the new discussions-first workflow.This rewrite clearly articulates the new contribution model while maintaining a welcoming and practical tone. The routing guidance for different contributor scenarios (lines 64-114) is particularly helpful, and the links to discussion categories are consistent with the templates in
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.ymland the new discussion template files.The static analysis warning about "Grimmory" on line 162 is a false positive—it's the project name.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1)
9-9:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorClean up the markdown formatting in the about text.
The text contains what appears to be leftover markdown link syntax: "head over to our Q&A [Q&A]". Since this is just descriptive text in the
aboutfield, the markdown formatting around "Q&A" looks unpolished.✨ Proposed fix to simplify the text
- about: Visit our Q&A forum to ask questions about installing or configuring Grimmory. + about: Visit our Q&A to ask questions about installing or configuring Grimmory.> Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.
obviouslyallie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With the added dropdown for nightly everything looks good. We've already talked about all of this. I double checked the urls as well.
BREAKING CHANGE: Grimmory no longer accepts new bug reports, feature requests, documentation requests, or support requests through GitHub issue forms. Community intake now starts in GitHub Discussions, and issues are reserved for accepted, actionable work. This change represents the a major step towards transitioning towards our own identity and mission with self determination for our project.
…ools#565) BREAKING CHANGE: Grimmory no longer accepts new bug reports, feature requests, documentation requests, or support requests through GitHub issue forms. Community intake now starts in GitHub Discussions, and issues are reserved for accepted, actionable work. This change represents the a major step towards transitioning towards our own identity and mission with self determination for our project.
Description
Shift Grimmory’s contributor intake from issue driven to discussion driven.
This updates our community-facing templates and contributing guide so bugs, feature ideas, and support requests start in GitHub Discussions, while the issue tracker stays reserved for approved, actionable work. It also refreshes the issue contact links to point users toward the new discussion paths and Discord.
Changes
CONTRIBUTING.mdaround the new “discussions first, issues actionable” workflowDEVELOPMENT.md, component-specific development guides, andAI_POLICY.mdSummary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Chores