-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 963
Improve label versions triaging #1613
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Stan Ulbrych <89152624+StanFromIreland@users.noreply.github.com>
triage/labels.rst
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, not sure if we need this? And I'm not sure about the triage label suggestion, it doesn't really say anything more than "issue is accepted by a triager".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, it's for a visual tag. Sometimes I don't remember the issues I've triaged. And if I see an issue with weird label I would say "oh this one could have been mistriaged maybe". But with a triaged label, I know that I don't need to change the labels (same for when I lack a topic-* or a directory for an issue; when there is just "type-bug" it's kind of .. hard to know that there is actually a project associated to the issue; projects can't be seen on the issue page)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe add a recommendation about whether to keep type-bug in type-security issues (are they truly redundant?)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that the place for that is beside the type-security doc?
@StanFromIreland
StanFromIreland
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hugovk Something like this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note: another acceptable 3.N label is when we implement a PEP. It's good to have both feature & 3.N labels at the same time because the PEP is meant to be implemented in that version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a bit confused :)
Filling in numbers to make this concrete:
Assume that we are currently in the beta period of 3.14.0,
that is, the latest version under development is 3.15.0a1.
If a feature implemented in the alpha period of 3.14.0
requires a non-trivial extension, a new feature issue must be
created and be given the 3.14 label.
The 3.14 beta was May to July 2025.
3.15 was still in pre-alpha, versioned 3.15.0a0 (from May to October 2025).
Did you mean 3.{N+1}.0a0 rather than 3.{N+1}.0a1?
In any case, I'm not sure we really need to document such exceptional things.
(Nit: "there are a few exceptional cases" but then we list just one case.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I meant 3.15.0.a0 sorry.
I think we need to document at least this case because we explicitly state that betas are feature frozen. As for the list, I thought I would have more but I do not think there will be more so I can rephrase this!
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Some people asked me about how I actually apply my labels while triaging and I think I could actually share my workflow in the devguide instead for future triaging. I especially think that it's not necessary for bugs that span across all active versions to be labelled with the all labels... Ideally, I would have wanted a 3.X+ tag which implies that the bug started appearing in 3.X, and a bot would be able to automate the labels every time a new one is added but this would be a separate issue.
cc @hugovk
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-devguide--1613.org.readthedocs.build/