AW: Confirmed bug labels

[Matt Caswell]

On 29/10/2019 12:24, Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29.10.19 13:14, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> Do we just need "triaged: bug" and "triaged: feature"? Or should we also
>> have "triaged: documentation" and "triaged: question" (so that there is
>> one for every corresponding "issue" label)?
> 
> Yes, that makes sense. Then it is assured that the 'issue: *' labels are
> set only for issues which have not been triaged yet.
> 
> Note also that the 'triaged: bug', 'triaged: feature', and 'triaged:
> documentation'
> labels also make sense for pull request, in particular w.r.t. the
> question whether
> a pull request can be backported or not.
> 
>>
>> Bugs, features and documentation issues are resolved by
>> fixing/implementing them, or marking them with a resolved label. Should
>> we also have a "resolved: answered" label where we believe we have
>> answered a question? Possibly also one where there has been no answer,
>> but we're closing it because the question is stale?
> 
> It might be useful to add more reasons for why the issue is resolved.
> OTOH we should watch out that we don't create too many labels.
> 
>     "resolved: fixed"
>     "resolved: answered"

Not sure about the "resolved: fixed" one...most of the time where we
resolve an issue by fixing it, it gets closed automatically. Adding a
label probably doesn't add much. I suppose it might be useful in the
case where someone reports a bug that is *already* fixed in a later version.

>     ...
> 
> For the unresolved issues, an 'unresolved: *' label makes sense:
> 
>     "unresolved: <some reason>"

Possible reasons for marking something as unresolved:

- The question is stale - no activity for a prolonged period
- Off topic - the question is about something not directly related to
OpenSSL
- Unable to help - despite our best efforts we weren't able to figure
out an answer
- Lack of information - we requested information and it wasn't forthcoming

Not sure if we would want a label for all of those or not.

Matt