Add reference to Epic or Issue in Removal & Deprecation MR descriptions to help reviewer

added to epic &583 (closed)

changed title from Removal or Deprecation MR description needs a reference to epic or issue to Add reference to Epic or Issue in Removal & Deprecation MR descriptions to help reviewer

changed the description

@fseifoddini @marcel.amirault I see the following in the Deprecations MR template:

Be sure to link this MR to the relevant deprecation issue(s). If the MR does not have a deprecation issue, hit pause and review this handbook documentation and connect with the Product Manager DRI.

My MR for a Removals MR template includes the same language.

What did you have in mind here in order to improve on the MR template and/or enforce this requirement?

@brhea I think all deprecations are supposed to have an issue where the deprecation is explained, and we want to make sure to link to that issue when we're creating deprecation item MRs. That makes it much easier to track the work and make sure all the details and dates match up. I assume that this is the case for removals as well, that there is a removal issue? So the same idea, we should link to it in the MR that adds the removal item, to keep everything connected.

So, for an example from my groups: gitlab-org/gitlab!74809 (merged)

In that MR, we link to: gitlab-org/gitlab#342800 (closed), which is the issue that implemented the deprecation.

So when we add this to update/removals.md, I think we would want the MR adding that to link to gitlab-org/gitlab#345538 (closed) (in the description), which is the %15.0 milestone issue that will track the actual removal itself.

@marcel.amirault Yes, I think we're on the same page here. The MR templates for both deprecations and removals ask that links to the relevant issues be added to the MR description.

In the case of some removal announcements, there may not be a new removal issue to link to but there would be an MR that removes the functionality and that MR would presumably link to the original deprecation issue.

In any event, both of our templates afford space for these links to be included. Did you have recommendations for making this more prominent or a change in wording?

@brhea I took a swing at updating the language for both templates, relating to the issue links, in gitlab-org/gitlab!78641 (merged)

We don't have a removals issue, the removal MR should sync back to the SSOT deprecation issue as the note in the MR template currently indicates. I'll await and review till ya'll are ready, Marcel has added his magic, etc.

Here's where we tell folks they must create a deprecation issue: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/gitlab-the-product/#breaking-changes-deprecations-and-removing-features