[neomutt-devel] Issue labels / Waffle Board
toogley at mailbox.org
toogley at mailbox.org
Sun Jan 29 09:47:40 CET 2017
> I have a few questions / suggestions...
> * What's the difference between:
> type:feature request
The type:enhancement is just an historical relict IMHO - before we had rewritten the labels, nearly *every* issue or pull request had the label type:enhancement - therefore I wanted to split that up in several things (e.g. the topic: labels).
In my view, the label type:feature request should be used in the future and type:enhancement should be deleted. (But also, not every type:enhancement should be type:feature request)
> * Can we shorted some of the names?
> has-attached: -> has: or attached:
Hm.. They were initially so short and i've rewritten them to be more explicit - i liked it better that way. But on the other hand, the meaning isn't lost when we would use has: or attached: - therefore i don't mind the transition.
> "more info from user" -> "more info"
I also made this change, because i wanted to make clear that the reporting user has to do something - before we can further work on this issue. (its kind of a "blocker" label)
> On the waffle site, the labels are taking up a lot of space.
> * Change spaces in labels to hyphens
> When the labels appear in a URI, the spaces become %20's which looks a
> bit messy.
Ah, yeah. +1
> * Could we change the colour of docs:*?
> The colour's a quite close to that of the bugs:*
> * Add a new label: bug:regression
> This means that neo/mutt used to work correctly, but now doesn't.
> The label should only be applied when we have a known old version that
> used to work (meaning we can 'git bisect').
> I'd like to rename:
> backlog -> planned
> I keep having to look up the meaning of "backlog", so I'd like to change
> it to "planned" (meaning: wanted for the next release, but not yet being
> worked on).
+1 I also forget the meaning of "backlog" a lot.
> ready -> review
> The "ready" category will become "review". When someone finishes some
> code it will get moved here until it has two approvals.
Maybe "needs:review" instead of just "review" ? I like the explicitness. But generally i like this idea.
> * Blue Sky category (in waffle)
> There are quite a lot of issues in the "pool" category. Many of the
> requests are unlikely to be fulfilled. I think I'd like a blue-sky
> status category (as well as, or instead of) the blue-sky milestone.
> That way I don't have to close the issues, but I can ignore them.
More information about the neomutt-devel