Am Dienstag, den 23.06.2020, 13:04 -0400 schrieb Dan Eble: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 04:40, Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > Pretty much that: You can only have one label from the same scope, and > > assigning a second automatically removes the old (cf. Patch::*). I > > actually agree that multiple Type's might be useful. If others are in > > favor as well, we can just rename the labels. > > My default position is to avoid restrictions when there isn't a good reason > for them. There are some types in the current set that I can't imagine using > together – for example (Enhancement|Maintainability) with > (Crash|Defect|Regression) – but unless that endangers the efficiency of > someone's workflow, I don't think we should spend time compartmentalizing > them. > > Patch::* obviously need to remain scoped because they name states in a state > machine.
I think there's agreement that: * Type::* should be made plain labels. * Patch::* must stay scoped. I can do the renaming of Type::* if nobody objects. What about: * Needs::* (currently design, evidence, policy); and * Status::* ? We can of course leave them as-is (for now), but I thought I'd just bring this up. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part