Re: labels for issues and pull requests in document repositories

I prefer your description of the labels to the ones on GitHub (at least for 
RDF Concept):
* spec:bug  Bug in the specification
* spec:editorial  Minor issue or proposed change in the specification (markup, 
typo, informative text)
* spec:enhancement Issue or proposed change to enhance the spec without 
changing the normative content substantively
* spec:substantive Issue or proposed change in the spec that changes its 
normative content

But there is still quite a lot of grey area here.  Is adding an issue marker 
for an issue that has not been approved by the working group editorial, 
enhancing, or substantive?   (I say not editorial.)  Is moving a reference 
from normative to informative when the citation is in a normative section but 
no normative behaviour is affected enhancing or substantive?  (I say 
enhancing, but it has to be shown that normative behaviour does not depend on 
the reference.)


peter



On 3/29/23 13:19, 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 <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> 
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/labels 
> <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
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2023 18:15:28 UTC