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 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.
>
