[openssl-project] GitHub labels

[Dr. Matthias St. Pierre]

> 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:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A%22Issue+resolved+-+WONTFIX%22+



> 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
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6509.
Under 'Labels' there is an entry 'Projects' followed by 'Milestones'


Matthias