On 29/10/2019 11:34, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
> A similar problem applies to 'issue: feature request'. Just having a
> 'confirmed' label for bugs
> wouldn't help in that case.
>
> So what do you think about adding a new 'triaged: *' family of labels, in
> addition to 'issue: *'?
>
> 'triaged: bug'
> 'triaged: feature'
> etc.
>
> If this seems too verbose, then we could just omit the triaged prefix:
>
> 'bug'
> 'feature'
> etc.
Yes, this makes sense to me (and I prefer the more verbose versions).
Should we remove the reporter label once its been triaged? It would be
quite confusing if you had both the labels "issue: bug report" *and*
"triaged: feature" (in the cases where someone reports something as a
bug, but we see it as a feature request).
Another issue I encountered was with the "closed: *" labels. "closed"
doesn't quite seem right to me. Whether something is closed or open is
somewhat independent of the states that those labels convey. For example
we might want to label something as "not a bug" but leave it open for a
little while to allow the reporter to respond or argue why it really
should be treated as a bug. Similarly with "wont fix" and maybe even
"duplicate".
Matt
>
> Matthias
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: openssl-project <openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org> Im Auftrag von
>> Matt Caswell
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 10:23
>> An: openssl-project@openssl.org
>> Betreff: Confirmed bug labels
>>
>> Do we need a "confirmed bug" or similar label? I was looking at #10283
>> which is labelled with "issue: bug report". But this only tells us that
>> the reporter thought it was a bug. I wanted to add a label confirming
>> that it really is a bug...but nothing suitable seems to be there.
>>
>> Matt
