> On 12 Jul 2016, at 18:42, Edward Z. Yang <ezy...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Excerpts from Oleg Grenrus's message of 2016-07-12 04:03:43 -0700: >> Looks good indeed! >> >> I have few questions: >> - what is purpose of `paging:*` labels, to help people see issues they are >> interested in? How it’s different from assignees (which can be multiple)? > > Beyond what Mikhail stated: > > - Multiple people can be paged, only one assigned Yes you can. https://github.com/blog/2178-multiple-assignees-on-issues-and-pull-requests <https://github.com/blog/2178-multiple-assignees-on-issues-and-pull-requests>
> - I can put more metadata in the tag name than assignable > (to help people decide who to page) Ah, page as in ping. That meaning I always find weird (and don’t remember). > summon (someone) over a public address system, so as to pass on a message IMHO multiple assignment would work better as it actually sends notification (if one choose to receive such). Yet, you’re right, deciding whom to page/assign is often non-obvious. Not sure if few-word description if any helpful. (e.g. whom to contact on hackage-security problems, I’m actually unsure whether it’s edsko or dcoutts, or on something else...). > > But it's an experiment. If it's not useful we can delete the tags. > >> - why “bug” has “ezyang planning to delete this tag”. I’d prefer to have >> “type: bug” and other “type:*” labels as: “type: discuss”, “type: >> enhancement”, “type: question”, and maybe more as e.g. stack has >> https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/labels >> <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/labels> > > OK, the tag served it's purpose! I planned to delete it because there > are lots of bugs in the issues tracker and no one has been methodically > tagging them bug or not, so it seemed that the tag was just not that > helpful. Just look at Stack's issues list: > https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues > who is tagging things as bugs! If we go for type:* tags, I’ll help with triaging all issues with type:* tag. > > discuss/enhancement/question are useful and I support tags for them. > Presently we have "priority: enhancement" but we can rename that as > needed. I’d like priorities to have a total-order. high > low is obvious, but what about enhancement and user-question? I’d change latter two into type:*, and maybe later introduce third priority level if we feel we need one. > >> - how priority labels interact with milestones? > > Agreed with Mikhail; priority within milestone. > >> - Should we add “pr welcome” or “awaiting pr” for issues which are >> discussed, but nobody have interest or time implementing right away (will >> help new contributors especially when combined with `meta: easy`) > > Sure! I wonder, however; for tickets that are tagged this way, I feel > the onus is on us to write a clear spec at the top of the bug for what > is desired (even better: link to a commit with a test!) Will help > contributors a lot. Yes, we should help as much as possible. I’d tag only “clear” issues, and add a comment that I can help with it, if there are some questions (or/and assign it to myself). Also I forgot to ask about "attention: please-merge”. What’s it purpose, to tag PRs that author thinks are amerceable? IMHO the comment is enough, and also would work for external-contributors, who **cannot** tag issues/prs. (This is the reason why I got push-rights in the first place, I’m still quite uncomfortable pushing changes myself). And what’s the idea behind “attention: regression”? How it’s different from a `type: bug` (its special case of a bug, but does it matter that much. Regressions could be critical or not, so priority tag, with type:bug would be enough?) E.g. is:open label:"priority: high" label:"bug (ezyang is planning to delete this tag)" milestone:"Cabal 1.26" filter https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20label%3A%22priority%3A%20high%22%20label%3A%22bug%20(ezyang%20is%20planning%20to%20delete%20this%20tag)%22%20milestone%3A%22Cabal%201.26%22%20 <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is:open%20label:%22priority:%20high%22%20label:%22bug%20(ezyang%20is%20planning%20to%20delete%20this%20tag)%22%20milestone:%22Cabal%201.26%22%20> shows not that many. OTOH there are 210 open issues (is:open is:issue no:milestone) without any milestone. Should we put them all into _|_ - milestone, and then promote to version milestones, when the discussion advanced enough we know when we want to release them (the soonest, or the latest?). As Cabal-1.26 165 open issues indicates, it’s more like “the soonest”, at least at this point. cabal-install-1.24.0.1 has 12 open issues, should we create cabal-install-1.24.1 -milestone and move them there? - Oleg
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
