Re: labels for issues and pull requests in document repositories

On 31/03/2023 02:14, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2023, at 3:06 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin 
>> <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peter, Gregg,
>>
>> the labels in our repos have been imported from another W3C repos 
>> (JSON-LD1.1 I believe).
>>
>> The best place to look for their meaning should be the label 
>> description in github, but mos of them had an empty description. I 
>> did my best to fix this -- although in some cases, my subjective 
>> interpretation could be discussed.
>>
>> There were a few were I was really not sure what their intended use 
>> was ("best practice", "spec:invalid").
>>
>
> “best practice” would likely be tagged if we were to do Best Practices 
> note, such as other groups have done. I think it’s presently 
> irrelevant for us, and can be deleted, if that’s practical.
I concur. I could easily delete it from all our repos, although for the 
moment I would keep it just un case.
>
> “spec:invalid”, I think, would be something that would be marked on an 
> issue against a specification, to indicate that the issue raised is 
> invalid. (Although, that’s a rather harsh and judgemental term). 
> Somewhat similar to “spec:wontfix”?
I agree that this sounds like a harsher version of spec:wontfix, and is 
therefore mostly redundant...
>>
>>   best
>>
>> On 29/03/2023 19:19, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> I think I replied to something like this earlier, and we should add 
>>> something to the Editor’s Guide. Each repository has it’s own set of 
>>> labels (for example, this for rdf-concepts [1]) and in some cases 
>>> they have comments describing their use. For Pull Requsts, I’ve been 
>>> using the following:
>>>
>>> * spec:editorial – Changes are limited to things that don’t change 
>>> the meaning of the document, either normative or informative. 
>>> Examples include spelling/grammar change and fixing links and 
>>> identifiers, as necessary.
>>>
>>> * spec:enhancement – Informative/non-normative changes to the spec. 
>>> Improvements to Security Considerations would be an example.
>>>
>>> * spec:substantive – Normative changes to the spec. Changes that 
>>> affect normative behavior, for example N-Quads Canonicalization changes.
>>>
>>> * needs-discussion – Flags an issue or PR for discussion on a call, 
>>> or ideally within the issue itself. It should be removed when the 
>>> points of contention have been resolved.
>>>
>>> These labels may be useful for issues as well as PRs.
>>>
>>> Some tags will automatically notify other groups, or may be used by 
>>> other groups for horizontal review. For example, “security-tracker” 
>>> and “i18n-tracker”. Others control the automated creation of Errata 
>>> (not significant until REC), for example “Editorial”, “Errata”, and 
>>> “ErratumRaised”.
>>>
>>> Adding descriptions for all the labels across all the repositories 
>>> would be useful, but probably requires some of the tools that PA put 
>>> in place to set them up originally.
>>>
>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/labels

>>>
>>>> On Mar 29, 2023, at 6:50 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
>>>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of labels that can be applied to issues and pull 
>>>> requests. Is there a document on which ones we should be using and 
>>>> what they mean?
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
>