[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

scoped labels (was: Re: [RFC] Use GitLab Milestones)

From: Jonas Hahnfeld
Subject: scoped labels (was: Re: [RFC] Use GitLab Milestones)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:23:51 +0200
User-agent: Evolution 3.36.3

Am Dienstag, den 23.06.2020, 13:04 -0400 schrieb Dan Eble:
> On Jun 23, 2020, at 04:40, Jonas Hahnfeld <> 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]