+1 for removing unnecessary labels. As for whether we keep the blocker label, I am +0 on keeping it. I am ok if it stays for the time being, but I don't think we need it anymore. Taking the 1.1.0 as an example, we are not using the blocker label. But still, we are discussing the possibility to slightly delay the branch cut time so that certain PR are included (see the requests in the release thread). So that label does not seem necessary.
We also have examples of issues that were labeled as 1.0-blocker but where we removed that label in order not to actually block the release. So the use of that label seems to be more about bringing attention than about flagging actual blockers. And I think the same will happen with blocker issues which are not resolved yet or not actively worked on, given that our goal is to have monthly releases. Wdyt? -- Pierre On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 4:49 AM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Generally, IIRC, we agreed on not using a "blocker label". > > Where was this? I thought the 1.0-blocker label was quite useful when > preparing for the 1.0 release, and I imagined that we'd continue to use > something similar for future releases. The closest thing I see is this > email > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/m2tbxomqhm2wrfnp1ww0g67o4h8jjlt6> from > Dmitri and while I agree that using milestones is a good idea, I'm not sure > that email reflects a broad consensus or even necessarily takes a strong > position that release-blocking issues should not be labeled as such. > > In general though I agree that deleting unused or underused labels is a > good idea, so let's do that. For those labels that remain, we should create > some guidelines around what the various labels mean. I can recall a couple > of discussions about abuse of the "bug" label as well. > > --EM > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 7:18 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I agree with all points and proposed label removal from Robert's email. > > > > As for "question", I would not mind keeping it, although, I personally do > > not see a big difference between a general discussion and a discussion > > labelled as a "question". Discussions are certainly preferable to issues > > labelled as "questions". > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 4:56 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We currently have a lot of GitHub labels for issues and pull requests. > > > Many of the labels serve(d) a temporary purpose, have no clear meaning > > > or are superfluous as GitHub offers more sophisticated approaches. The > > > following list serves as a proposal to apply to the project's list of > > > labels. > > > > > > Note: There's no way in GitHub to "hide" or "deprecate" a label. > > > > > > Labels used for "release version associations". GitHub offers > > > Milestones for this use case. All the labels can be legitly removed. > > > Generally, IIRC, we agreed on not using a "blocker label". > > > - 1.0-blocker > > > - 1.1.0-blocker > > > - 2.0-blocker: We haven't agreed on any content of version 2.0 - so I > > > don't think this label is needed. > > > - 1.0.0 bug bash: the meaning of this label is unknown > > > > > > Unused labels, should all be removed: > > > - approved: unclear what the meaning should be > > > - wontfix: use GH functionality > > > - dependencies: unused > > > - duplicate: unused > > > - help wanted: unused > > > - invalid: unused > > > - question: unused > > > - rebase: unused > > > > > > Rarely used: > > > - documentation: I think this should be used to associate issues and > > > maybe PRs with changes to the website. Or we rename this label to > > > "website", which seems clearer. > > > - IdentityRoleFederation: only one PR has this, should be removed > > > > > > Used labels, should be good to keep as is: > > > - bug > > > - enhancement > > > - proposal > > > - good first issue > > > - renovate-polaris: dependency bumps by Renovate > > > - Stale: stale-PRs workflow > > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > >
