Conversation
this PR here should just serve to have a proposal and discussion about the new labels for the monorepo
| color: 5319e7 | ||
| - name: T9-polkadot | ||
| description: This PR/Issue is related to/affects Polkadot. | ||
| color: ffeeee |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need to specify this here more? like: relay chain, collators, staking, etc.?
|
No Status nor Urgency labels 😍 |
| - name: I10-optimisation | ||
| description: An enhancement to provide better overall performance in terms of time-to-completion for a task. | ||
| color: c5def5 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to have two labels here: one for CPU optimization, and one for memory usage optimizations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it be enough if you use I10-optimisation with a T* label? Then I'd add there T12-CPU and T13-memory_usage? And you can then mix and match with other labels, like: bug, annoyance, etc.
|
@the-right-joyce Are these labels only supposed to be for PRs, or also for the issues? I think it'd probably make sense to have separate sets of labels for both. |
michalkucharczyk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good. left some nitpicks.
I'd like to back up this idea, I think issues and prs are many times mixed up, and having different labels for those would be a great step into separating them |
|
@juangirini we can define this with the ruled labels tool from @chevdor |
kianenigma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like we have no audit labels anymore. All good, but do we have a replacement system in mind?
We'll use a project to track audit issues #29 (comment) |
Co-authored-by: Juan <juangirini@gmail.com>
Today, we are using the Audit labels to inform readers of the release notes about what has been audited, what does ont require aurditing, etc... Is it planned to drop this feature ? |
|
yes |
for clarity, I would be in support of prefixing PR-related labels with This doesn't help with the shared |
You are trying to workaround the fact that there are too many labels and they are not explained. This should hopefully not be the case anymore with these refactoring. |
kianenigma
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the mono-repo, I suggest we break the. T1-Runtime into two buckets:
T1-FRAME (changes to core frame, the framework, not a particular pallet)
T2-Pallets (changes to a particular pallet, possibly used by others)
for example now in PBA I want to report the latest changes in FRAME the framework to Shawn to update himself, but filtering by T1-Runtime is super noisy, contains million patches to random pallets that are unrelated to the FRAME itself.
related to #25
this PR should serve solely to have a proposal and discussion about the new labels for the monorepo