More generally, I see little benefit in trying to stay close to the format of trac tickets.
I didn’t think of having this as the default template. Just an optional template for former Trac users who are less familiar with GitHub (like me). But as I’ve now seen, templates and issue forms aren’t the right tools for an interface, and it’s probably harder to do than I expected. Perhaps it would be sufficient to have a reference to the migration documentation <https://github.com/sagemath/sage/wiki/migration-from-trac-to-Git**b> in all the templates we offer, at least for the initial period after the migration has taken place. Marc Mezzarobba schrieb am Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2022 um 10:35:55 UTC+2: > John H Palmieri wrote: > > I like the idea of mimicking the trac setup, but moving away from trac > > also lets us reconsider parts of the trac interface. I personally do > > not find the "Priority" label very helpful, other than whether it's a > > blocker or not. What do others think? > > I agree about the Priority field. I also find the Type and Component > fields useless most of the time. (Regarding Component, many of the > possible values don't map well IMO to either actual code components or > developer interests, but a few do. In any case, I don't think it should > be mandatory.) > > More generally, I see little benefit in trying to stay close to the > format of trac tickets. I would just start with a few labels for ticket > properties that are widely used now (bug, blocker, maybe a couple of > well-defined components...), allow people to create labels and projects > as they see fit, and let new conventions emerge. > > -- > Marc Mezzarobba > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/51f599cd-9554-4c48-888c-6e648e8e53bcn%40googlegroups.com.
