Add code cleanup and documentation labels to issue-management.md#3908
Conversation
| We use the following labels for issue classifications: | ||
|
|
||
| * `Issue-Bug`: the issue is reporting a bug | ||
| * `Issue-Code Cleanup`: the issue is for cleaning up the code with no impact on functionality |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe remove the space in the label? This makes it easier to write manual filters in GitHub.
Please clarify - usually we have PRs not Issues with code/test cleanup.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I originally had no space, but looking at some of the other labels we have, I decided to have the space for consistency.
Issue-Code Cleanup is to identify known issues in the code where we should clean up (I've already labeled a number of such issues) that isn't a priority to address so they aren't automatically PRs
joeyaiello
left a comment
joeyaiello
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally, this LGTM, but it's unclear to me what action the "Review - Needs Documentation" is actually supposed to trigger (which is why I hadn't done this in my other PR yet). What is actually supposed to happen when someone adds that label? Do we block the PR merge? Do we go generate an issue in PowerShell-Docs?
| * `Review - Abandoned` : The PR was not updated for significant number of days (the exact number could vary over time). | ||
| Maintainers should look into such PRs and re-evaluate them. | ||
| * `Review - Committee` : The PR/Issue needs a review from [powershell-committee](../community/governance.md#powershell-committee) | ||
| * `Review - Need Documentation` : The PR has changes that require a documentation change or new documentation added to [PowerShell-Docs](http://github.com/powershell/powershell-docs) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't this be "Needs"? If you think that's pedantic, whatever, I'm fine with what we've got, but it sounds funny to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In fact, now that I type it out, I do think it would be useful for "Documentation" to be more upfront in the label for easy ID. Can we go with Review _ Documentation Needed?
In fact, his Review even needed? See my uber-comment below...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Intent is to label PRs that have doc implications, but we agreed we wouldn't block accepting PRs due to lack of doc. I put it with the Review group of labels as it seemed appropriate to get attention. I'm fine with standalone Documentation Needed
|
I believe we shouldn't block PRs, we should full async, PowerShell Doc Writers should be active side and monitor the label to start a documentation process in accordance with their workflow. |
|
@joeyaiello fixed |
joeyaiello
changed the title
joeyaiello
left a comment
joeyaiello
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Going to update #3794 to link up with this.
5 participants
Added descriptions for
Issue-Code CleanupandReview - Need Documentationlabels