> Matthias.St.Pierre> A propos: it might be useful to split the 'pending > Matthias.St.Pierre> 2nd review' into two different labels (of the same color): > Matthias.St.Pierre> > Matthias.St.Pierre> 'pending 2nd review' -> 'review-required' > and > 'omc-review-required' > > I'm frankly unsure... it's not like there's such a massive amount of > 'pending 2nd > review' at one time to warrant such a split...
You are probably right. It was just a quick idea that came to my mind. > Matthias.St.Pierre> 'wont-fix' and 'technical-debt' are currently > Matthias.St.Pierre> unused. Do we really need them? For example, if > Matthias.St.Pierre> an issue is closed without fixing it, does it > Matthias.St.Pierre> really require a ‚wont-fix‘ label? > > That depends on how keen you are, when someone asks two weeks later why > an issue was closed, to dig through lots of commentary (for an issue that > did, in > fact, contain a lot of commentary) to find that one comment that says "Wont > fix" (remember that people can keep commenting after an issue is closed, so > scrolling to the end isn't necessarely the easy answer). Makes sense, in theory. In practice, there is not a single issue marked 'wontfix', neither open nor closed: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A%22Issue+resolved+-+WONTFIX%22+ > However, it sometimes happens that I do a PR based on, for example, > OpenSSL_1_1_0-stable, simply because that's where the issue was found, but > with the intent to cherry pick into newer lines of development (master, and > OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable soon). That gives those labels their potential for > showing intent. You're right, having labels for all relevant branches ('master', '1.1.1', '1.1.0', '1.0.2') makes sense for consistency and there is nothing wrong if people prefer to label a pull request with the target branch, too. > Matthias.St.Pierre> One could go even further and ask what sense does > Matthias.St.Pierre> it make to have such an unspecific milestone as > Matthias.St.Pierre> 'Post 1.1.1'? Wouldn't it be better to leave such > Matthias.St.Pierre> pull requests unassigned? > > No, because we need to differentiate between PRs and issues we haven't > looked at yet and those where we have made a decision where they should go. > And perhaps that's an argument to keep using the label, as it's more visible > in > the pull request summary. The milestones are listed to on the right hand side, too, see https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6509. Under 'Labels' there is an entry 'Projects' followed by 'Milestones' Matthias _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project