>>I'm not sure "rest" is the way it's currently being used either: it >might be >>more useful to rename it to be like the wait-for-mailman tag to >indicate bugs >>that occur due to mailmanclient. > >'wait-for-mailman' is just a little weird given that we use the term >'mailman' >for the whole umbrella project. 'wait-for-core' is a little better but >it >doesn't accurately describe blockers on mailman.client. >'wait-for-api'? I'm >also okay with leaving it as it us until/unless we figure out something >better.
In most cases I think we would have to wait for both core and mailmanclient. Thats why I don't think we need two labels for it. In my opinion it would be better to have only one label and always link to an issue in mailmanclient and/or core _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
