[openssl-project] GitHub labels

Dr. Matthias St. Pierre Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com
Wed Jun 20 21:09:18 UTC 2018

> Matthias.St.Pierre> A propos: it might be useful to split the 'pending
> Matthias.St.Pierre> 2nd review' into two different labels (of the same color):
> Matthias.St.Pierre>
> Matthias.St.Pierre>              'pending 2nd review'  ->  'review-required'  and
> 'omc-review-required'
> I'm frankly unsure...  it's not like there's such a massive amount of 'pending 2nd
> review' at one time to warrant such a split...

You are probably right. It was just a quick idea that came to my mind.

> Matthias.St.Pierre> 'wont-fix' and 'technical-debt' are currently
> Matthias.St.Pierre> unused. Do we really need them?  For example, if
> Matthias.St.Pierre> an issue is closed without fixing it, does it
> Matthias.St.Pierre> really require a ‚wont-fix‘ label?
> That depends on how keen you are, when someone asks two weeks later why
> an issue was closed, to dig through lots of commentary (for an issue that did, in
> fact, contain a lot of commentary) to find that one comment that says "Wont
> fix" (remember that people can keep commenting after an issue is closed, so
> scrolling to the end isn't necessarely the easy answer).

Makes sense, in theory. In practice, there is not a single issue marked 'wontfix',
neither open nor closed:


> However, it sometimes happens that I do a PR based on, for example,
> OpenSSL_1_1_0-stable, simply because that's where the issue was found, but
> with the intent to cherry pick into newer lines of development (master, and
> OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable soon).  That gives those labels their potential for
> showing intent.

You're right, having labels for all relevant branches ('master', '1.1.1', '1.1.0', '1.0.2') makes
sense for consistency and there is nothing wrong if people prefer to label a pull request
with the target branch, too.

> Matthias.St.Pierre> One could go even further and ask what sense does
> Matthias.St.Pierre> it make to have such an unspecific milestone as
> Matthias.St.Pierre> 'Post 1.1.1'? Wouldn't it be better to leave such
> Matthias.St.Pierre> pull requests unassigned?
> No, because we need to differentiate between PRs and issues we haven't
> looked at yet and those where we have made a decision where they should go.
> And perhaps that's an argument to keep using the label, as it's more visible in
> the pull request summary.

The milestones are listed to on the right hand side, too, see
Under 'Labels' there is an entry 'Projects' followed by 'Milestones'


More information about the openssl-project mailing list