Postorius issue tracker labels
Hi, all
I just went through the labels in the Postorius issue tracker
https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/labels
and documented the undocumented as well as changing a couple of labels. Comments very welcome.
There are two labels whose purpose I'm unclear on, "subscription" and "ui". I think "ui" should be split into "appearance" (CSS) and "workflow" (what operations can be done from which forms). If so, I think "subscription" really should be merged into "workflow" (at least the open issue should be).
WDYT?
Steve
On 2016-06-04 1:11 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Hi, all
I just went through the labels in the Postorius issue tracker
https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/labels
and documented the undocumented as well as changing a couple of labels. Comments very welcome.
There are two labels whose purpose I'm unclear on, "subscription" and "ui". I think "ui" should be split into "appearance" (CSS) and "workflow" (what operations can be done from which forms). If so, I think "subscription" really should be merged into "workflow" (at least the open issue should be).
It looks good to me, and I especially like the proposed UI split.
I think the "subscription" tag can go away: it was used to flag bugs related to subscribing and unsubscribing, but I don't think that's a super useful category in and of itself right now .
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.
Terri
On Jun 04, 2016, at 08:46 AM, Terri Oda 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.
-Barry
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
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
participants (4)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Simon Hanna -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Terri Oda