AW: Confirmed bug labels
matt at openssl.org
Tue Oct 29 11:57:03 UTC 2019
On 29/10/2019 11:53, Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
> 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'
> 'approval: done'
> ... 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.
Yes - ok. That's a good argument.
>> 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
> 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
> 'closed: *'.
"rejected" isn't even quite right either. E.g. in the case of "wont fix"
its not that we are disputing that what they've told us isn't true -
just that we're not going to do anything about it.
How about "resolved: *" instead?
More information about the openssl-project