[AIRFLOW-6394] Simplify github PR template

[potiuk]

Our Github template is not really useful for most people. Almost no-one is
marking the tick-marks when submitting the PR and not many people update the
link to the AIRFLOW ticket. I don't think it serves the purpose of teaching
people as it is too long to be actually read and acted upon

We should simplify it.

And later we should add probot checks to automate most of the stuff that we
wanted to enforce with the template

• Description above provides context of the change
• Commit message contains [AIRFLOW-6394] or [AIRFLOW-XXXX] for document-only changes
• Unit tests coverage for changes (not needed for documentation changes)
• Commits follow "How to write a good git commit message"
• Relevant documentation is updated including usage instructions.
• I will engage committers as explained in Contribution Workflow Example.

In case of fundamental code change, Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in UPDATING.md.
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.

[BasPH]

Good idea, the current template isn't very useful.

[potiuk]

I removed some more unneeded words :)

[turbaszek]

I like the simplicity.

[mik-laj]

I think it is worth keeping the requirement to add a link to JIRA in the description. Now it is not very clear because it is in the middle of a sentence.

[turbaszek]

I think it is worth keeping the requirement to add a link to JIRA in the description. Now it is not very clear because it is in the middle of a sentence.

I agree and moreover we have to adjust XXXX two times?

[potiuk]

I updated the template after the comments. Please re-review :). You can see how such PR will look like above - I updated PR description according to the updated template.

I think it's much cleaner and actually actionable and more readable and useful (comparing to the old one). Let me know if you are happy with it !

[turbaszek]

Am I right that when opening a PR I have to input JIRA number two times? I think it's redundant

[potiuk]

@nuclearpinguin. I tried to simplify it indeed but do not know how. Any idea how to make it not redundant before we employ probot ?

[potiuk]

It's super useful to have the link here so that we can quickly move to the JIRA issue. We can do it with probot likely but now some manual entry is needed I am afraid :(

[kaxil]

I think it is fine, generally, you just copy/paste it. Just 1 more paste :)

[baolsen]

Suggestion, as a new contributor I was at first not aware of the process for requesting reviews. I had read the contribution guidelines but it was not 100% clear to me how code review worked.

I've since thought that something could be mentioned on this checklist, e.g. -
[X] I will engage with the code review process as explained in the contribution guidelines

(IMHO I also feel that the contribution guidelines should have a separate section for code review process, so it is clearer and easy to find for newbies)

[potiuk]

Suggestion, as a new contributor I was at first not aware of the process for requesting reviews. I had read the contribution guidelines but it was not 100% clear to me how code review worked.

I've since thought that something could be mentioned on this checklist, e.g. -
[X] I will engage with the code review process as explained in the contribution guidelines

(IMHO I also feel that the contribution guidelines should have a separate section for code review process, so it is clearer and easy to find for newbies)

Would Contribution Workflow Example work @baolsen? We've added it recently as part of GSOD changes.