-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
monorepo labels draft #29
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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