[neomutt-devel] Issue labels / Waffle Board

toogley at mailbox.org toogley at mailbox.org
Sun Jan 29 18:36:33 CET 2017

another suggestion:

we could rename status:discussion to status:discuss

> in terms of ontology, you have three main types of issues:
> - bug: when someone report an unexpected behaviour (usually expected
>   behaviour is defined by the documentation… a crash being a special
>   case of unexpected behaviour ☺) ;
> - enhancement: a way to extend the behaviour of the software

I disagree here. IMHO also e.g. improving the automatization of a project management thing is an enhancement - generally speaking, an enhancement is not specific to the behavior of the software (e.g. what the user sees when using it)

> My personal take on this is that "enhancement" is a default label provided
> by github, so it'll make sense to anybody used to github but new to the
> project. It's also shorter by 4 letters ☺ (or for the label golf, simply
> type:feature, even shorter).

Hm.. I like the more explicit name.

> > > 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. 
> Well, you should get used to it sooner than later, as the traditional
> columns on a kanban are:
> | (pool) | backlog | in progress | ready | (closed) |

Hm, but why do we have to stick with the traditional kanban columns? I completely understand and like flatcap's request.

> I would rather suggest to actually add a new column: review. The process
> becoming:
> → status:progress → status:review → [approved] → status:ready → [merged] → status:closed
>              ↑            ↓
>              ↑ ← ← ← [rejected]


> > Maybe "needs:review" instead of just "review" ? I like the
> > explicitness. But generally i like this idea.
> For homogeneity, I suggest it should be status:review.


> Ideally, I'd love that waffle would support filtering issues, so that we
> could exclude all type:question (and maybe even status:discussion) from
> the kanban, as well as milestone:blue-sky.

yeah that would be great.

> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:16:26AM +0100, toogley at mailbox.org wrote:
> > I have also a suggestion:
> > Can we replace the "needs:help" tag with the habit of assigning people
> > to issues if they work on that? (and remove that also if they don't
> > anymore)
> > I mean when nobody has been assigned to the issue, that means kind of
> > that we don't know how to solve that one or are lacking time to work
> > on it. Therefore, IMHO the lack of an issue assignation automatically
> > tells that we need help on that.
> a better one would be a "help wanted" tag, a bit like the "easy" one, so
> it's not used for our own process, but for advertising the issue. That
> way, we could consider having a list of issues to be featured on the
> neomutt.org website filtered by either tag.

Agreed. But what would be the distinction between the "easy" label and "help wanted". I consider those redundant.

More information about the neomutt-devel mailing list