Re: labels for issues and pull requests in document repositories

> 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.

“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”?
>   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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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>