On 2016-06-04 3:23 PM, Simon Hanna wrote:
I'm not sure "rest" is the way it's currently being used either: it
might be
more useful to rename it to be like the wait-for-mailman tag to
indicate bugs
that occur due to mailmanclient.
'wait-for-mailman' is just a little weird given that we use the term
'mailman'
for the whole umbrella project. 'wait-for-core' is a little better but
it
doesn't accurately describe blockers on mailman.client.
'wait-for-api'? I'm
also okay with leaving it as it us until/unless we figure out something
better.
In most cases I think we would have to wait for both core and mailmanclient.
Thats why I don't think we need two labels for it.
In my opinion it would be better to have only one label and always link to an
issue in mailmanclient and/or core
We actually changed it to be just "blocked" so it can refer to any thing
we might be waiting on, including things just in client, things in core
and client, and other issues, since that turned out to be useful for triage.
Terri
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
Mailman-Developers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
