Yes, I think also that the Type (bug, enh, feature, cleanup) of the issue must be orthogonal to the tool/app/subsystem in question :)
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]>wrote: > Someone had suggested to remove the "Pharo 1.4 Enhancement" template, since > we're not accepting any. That makes sense. > > Also, the Nautilus template labels the issue "Nautilus", but the label in > the list is "Type-Nautilus". Which brings me to my next question... > > The other Types are Bug, Enhancement, Cleanup, Feature [1]. Nautilus and > Jenkins [2] really don't fit into this framework. Maybe because there will > be many fewer issues, we don't need the level of granularity of [1] for > [2]. > But when we get close to a release, it'd be nice to know that there is 1 > Nautilus bug and 10 Enhancements pending (i.e. probably only one critical > thing) vs. 11 Type-Nautilus. > > So, now that I said all that, it seems the most powerful/flexible approach > would be to leave the "nautilus" tag, remove the leading "Type-" from > "Type-[Jenkins|Spec|Seed]", and then to make templates for > Jenkins/Spec/Seed > like the one for Nautilus. > > What do you think? > > Sean > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Google-Code-labels-templates-tp4636767.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
