Conversation
|
I guess the obvious question is: is this the right repo for this label taxonomy? We need a consistent place for it given that we're now a single team working across 5 different orgs. |
This action compares the labels defined in this repo with those specified in the protocol/.github repo.
Stebalien
force-pushed
the
feat/issue-labeling
branch
from
50dd029 to
a477060
Compare
ISSUE_LABELS.md
Outdated
| | `kind/bug` | A bug in existing code (including security flaws) | `#fc2929` | | ||
| | `kind/discussion` | Topical discussion; usually not changes to codebase | `#c7def8` | | ||
| | `kind/enhancement` | A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature | `#c7def8` | | ||
| | `kind/maintenance` | Work required to avoid breaking changes or harm to project's status quo | `#c7def8` | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Were we going to add a note to be more specific here? Maybe something about "Build systems, dependency upgrades, CI."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. The current description better describes "tech debt" which probably deserves a different label.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like we need to split this into:
kind/maintenance: CI, labeling, permissions.kind/cleanup(orkind/debt): Cleanup, refactors, etc.
|
Most of these labels don’t apply well to a repo that isn’t code and having a long list of unused labels will make labelling more difficult. |
For now, I'm happy to apply these labels to code repos only (by default). |
3 participants
These issue labels were imported from https://github.com/ipfs/community/raw/master/ISSUE_LABELS.md (with slight modifications) which was originally adapted from https://github.com/libp2p/libp2p/blob/master/ISSUE-LABELLING.md.
status/duplicatelabel was dropped. This is really a resolution, not a status. Duplicate issues are closed with a comment anyways so this label doesn't help much.status/deferredlabel was dropped. Priorities should be communicated through theP*labels. AnyP2&P3issues are effectively "deferred".This patch also contains a GitHub Action to verify that all issue labels have been updated upstream in the protocol/.github repo. In the future, I'd like to partially automate this update process. Unfortunately, handling renames is a bit tricky so we're going to have to keep these two lists in sync for now.