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

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Mittwoch, den 24.06.2020, 13:23 +0200 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
> Am Dienstag, den 23.06.2020, 13:04 -0400 schrieb Dan Eble:
> > On Jun 23, 2020, at 04:40, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@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.

Done. Type::Invalid is gone because the two issues already had
Status::Invalid, and Defect and Type::Defect have been merged.

Jonas

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