On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jonathan Lange <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Robert Collins > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jonathan Lange <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Robert Collins >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I'd like to cleanup our tags a little - we have 151 official tags. I >>>> don't mean to stop folk using arbitrary tags, just make the set we're >>>> /working with/ a little clearer and crisper: I don't think there is a >>>> lot of value making every single thing have a blessed tags. We should >>>> have tags for broad areas and for current LEPs. >>>> > > Sorry for the delay in response. > > I want to re-iterate that I think it's a good idea to revisit our tags. > >>> ... >>>> I'd like to delete the following tags as seeming not carrying enough >>>> use to be *official tags* in the project - they would stay on the >>>> relevant bugs, but not be always shown in the portlet, nor be offered >>>> in typeahead in the bug tags widget. >>>> >>> >>> A lot of these are cleanups which are obviously good ideas. I don't >>> know what criteria you are using to decide that one tag is worthy of >>> being official and another is not. Why is 'canonical-losa-lp' to stay >>> official but 'oem-services' not? Why is 'patch-tracking' not worthy of >>> being official when 'codehosting' is? You say "broad area" above, but >>> I would have thought that "bug tags" were a broad area. >> >> Hunch, guesswork. For your specific examples: >> canonical-losa-lp is important because we use it to mark things we >> want to do for operational efficiency/robustness, and we need to know >> how many things are affecting that. >> oem-services isn't because while we care about things affecting >> stakeholders (which is why I proposed a new stakeholder official tag), >> the specific stakeholder isn't something we need to report on & >> trivially show. patch-tracking I folded into code review, because >> patch tracking was intended as a form of code review. codehosting is a >> broad area (as is code review). >> > > Sure, patch-tracking is a form of code review, but bugs in the way the > bug tracker handles patches rarely have anything to do with bugs in > the code-review system. This makes me think that we have a difference > over what tags are or what they should be used for or something. > >> Are you happy with me actioning what I listed (modified by Julian and >> Curtis' suggestions)? >> > > Not really, because I still don't have a good idea of what official > tags we'd end up with. > > My main hesitation over this proposal is I'm afraid the outcome will > be an official breakdown of Launchpad into components, while the > discussion has been about what tags we'll change. Maybe I don't need > to worry about that. Having a list of the proposed new set of official > tags would help with that, I think. >
I still think that this is the case, but reckon that if you go ahead and just do the changes that you are proposing we'll be in a better position to see what those components are. jml _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
