I just made these changes to the MTT repo. There does not seem to be a way to change the default search pattern for the "Issues" tab - so that we can hide the Archive items. So if you want to filter them out just add the following to your search: -label:Archive
In our meeting a couple weeks ago we identified some development items for the short term. Can folks take point on filing those tickets so we can track their progress? I'll add the left-to-do items for the Server side. Label all those tickets that you need/want soon as v4.0. On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Josh Hursey <jjhur...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > We are seeing more activity with MTT development, and there is a desire to > push to a formal release at some point in the not-to-distant future. As > such, I think it is time to clean up/out the issues on GitHub. Quite a > number of those issues are feature ideas that we came up with that were > never investigated. > > So I propose that we do the following. All of which is open for > discussion, and I can take point on making the changes once we settle on > what we want. > > *Milestones*: > 1) Mark all existing milestones as completed. > 2) Create a v4.0 milestone to track development to the 'first' release > (why not v1.0 - see [A] below) > 3) Any issue filed against "Future" will be filed instead against > "ArchivedFuture" > > *Labels*: > 1) Create a "work in progress" label - for PRs in progress > 2) Create a label for each of the major parts of MTT > - "Perl Client" > - "Python Client" > - "Reporter" > - "Database" > - "Server" > 3) Create a "Wishlist" label where we can label wild enhancement ideas > that we would like, but know we have no time to pursue in the near future. > That way it is easy to get a list of neat things to do for people wanting > to jump in. > 4) Create an "Archive" label > > *Issues:* > 1) All existing issues get labeled with "Archive" in addition to their > existing labels > > > What do folks think? Did I miss anything? > > Thanks, > Josh > > > [A] There was informal v1.0 / v2.0 / v3.0 waypoints in the history. I > didn't want to suggest removing those incase that history is important to > us in the future. However, I'm open to discussing removing them too. >
