AW: Confirmed bug labels
Matthias St. Pierre
Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com
Tue Oct 29 11:53:35 UTC 2019
On 29.10.19 12:41, Matt Caswell wrote:
> 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'
>> If this seems too verbose, then we could just omit the triaged prefix:
> 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).
I agree with you that it should be removed.
BTW: That's a similar question than your recent question whether
'approval: done' should be removed when the 'ready to merge'
label is added. After sleeping a night over it, I would prefer if
the former were removed. If we would add the 'approval: ' prefix,
then it would be obvious why it makes sense:
'approval: review pending'
'approval: omc review pending'
... 24h grace period ...
'approval: ready to merge'
The transition diagram would be much easier to remember, in particular
for the case when an approval needs to be revoked because some change
was added (or even force-pushed) after approval.
> 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
Actually the 'rejected: *' prefix would be the most appropriate. I just hesitated
because it sounded so unfriendly. If you have a more friendly proposal, I'd be
happy to hear about it. Otherwise I would just suggest to use it instead of
More information about the openssl-project