[Freeipa-devel] "blocker" tag for pull request

[Petr Vobornik]

Hi all,

I created "blocker" tag for FreeIPA Git Hub PRs.

It is should be used to mark PRs which solves test blocker or other
functional blockers - e.g. blocks creation of demo. I.e. should be used
rather rarely.

I don't like the tag name, but I couldn't find better.

Note: blocker priority in pagure doesn't imply blocker tag in PR. But
testblocker tag in pagure does. Actually I'm thinking about changing
Pagure priority names to: "highest, high, medium, low, patchwelcome"

[Tomas Krizek]

Post by Petr Vobornik
Hi all,
I created "blocker" tag for FreeIPA Git Hub PRs.
It is should be used to mark PRs which solves test blocker or other
functional blockers - e.g. blocks creation of demo. I.e. should be
used rather rarely.
I don't like the tag name, but I couldn't find better.

I think we could use the name "high-priority". It could have other uses
besides marking a blocker, e.g. requesting prompt execution of tests in
PR CI.

Post by Petr Vobornik
Note: blocker priority in pagure doesn't imply blocker tag in PR. But
testblocker tag in pagure does. Actually I'm thinking about changing
Pagure priority names to: "highest, high, medium, low, patchwelcome"

+1, but I'd prefer "critical" instead of "highest"

[Martin Bašti]

Post by Tomas Krizek

Post by Petr Vobornik
Hi all,
I created "blocker" tag for FreeIPA Git Hub PRs.
It is should be used to mark PRs which solves test blocker or other
functional blockers - e.g. blocks creation of demo. I.e. should be
used rather rarely.
I don't like the tag name, but I couldn't find better.

I think we could use the name "high-priority". It could have other uses
besides marking a blocker, e.g. requesting prompt execution of tests in
PR CI.

Sounds good or maybe "prioritized", IMHO "blocker" word is overused.

Post by Tomas Krizek

Post by Petr Vobornik
Note: blocker priority in pagure doesn't imply blocker tag in PR. But
testblocker tag in pagure does. Actually I'm thinking about changing
Pagure priority names to: "highest, high, medium, low, patchwelcome"

+1, but I'd prefer "critical" instead of "highest"

+1 for critical

pyldap uses "help wanted" instead "patchwelcome", it sounds better to
me. I'd use it as separate tag instead of priority. Even high
prioritized issues can be made by contributors in early phase of
development if they are easy enough.

Martin^2

[Standa Laznicka]

Post by Martin Bašti

Post by Tomas Krizek

Post by Petr Vobornik
Hi all,
I created "blocker" tag for FreeIPA Git Hub PRs.
It is should be used to mark PRs which solves test blocker or other
functional blockers - e.g. blocks creation of demo. I.e. should be
used rather rarely.
I don't like the tag name, but I couldn't find better.

I think we could use the name "high-priority". It could have other uses
besides marking a blocker, e.g. requesting prompt execution of tests in
PR CI.

Sounds good or maybe "prioritized", IMHO "blocker" word is overused.

Post by Tomas Krizek

Post by Petr Vobornik
Note: blocker priority in pagure doesn't imply blocker tag in PR. But
testblocker tag in pagure does. Actually I'm thinking about changing
Pagure priority names to: "highest, high, medium, low, patchwelcome"

+1, but I'd prefer "critical" instead of "highest"

+1 for critical
pyldap uses "help wanted" instead "patchwelcome", it sounds better to
me. I'd use it as separate tag instead of priority. Even high
prioritized issues can be made by contributors in early phase of
development if they are easy enough.
Martin^2
--
Martin Bašti
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech

+1 for critical;

+1 for "help wanted", reasons:

- "patchwelcome" sounds strange, and strange is an understatement here
(also, are you afraid of 2 word tags?)

- "help wanted" is much more humble, "patches welcome" is a common cry
when you just don't care enough to fix it yourself, and I don't believe
that's the message we want to be sending outside

[Tomas Krizek]

Post by Standa Laznicka

Post by Martin Bašti

Post by Tomas Krizek

Post by Petr Vobornik
Hi all,
I created "blocker" tag for FreeIPA Git Hub PRs.
It is should be used to mark PRs which solves test blocker or other
functional blockers - e.g. blocks creation of demo. I.e. should be
used rather rarely.
I don't like the tag name, but I couldn't find better.

I think we could use the name "high-priority". It could have other uses
besides marking a blocker, e.g. requesting prompt execution of tests in
PR CI.

Sounds good or maybe "prioritized", IMHO "blocker" word is overused.

Bump, can we please change the "blocker" tag to "high-priority" and tag
the high priority PR? Currently #757, #758.

Post by Standa Laznicka

Post by Martin Bašti

Post by Tomas Krizek

Post by Petr Vobornik
Note: blocker priority in pagure doesn't imply blocker tag in PR. But
testblocker tag in pagure does. Actually I'm thinking about changing
Pagure priority names to: "highest, high, medium, low, patchwelcome"

+1, but I'd prefer "critical" instead of "highest"

+1 for critical
pyldap uses "help wanted" instead "patchwelcome", it sounds better to
me. I'd use it as separate tag instead of priority. Even high
prioritized issues can be made by contributors in early phase of
development if they are easy enough.
Martin^2
--
Martin Bašti
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech

+1 for critical;
- "patchwelcome" sounds strange, and strange is an understatement here
(also, are you afraid of 2 word tags?)
- "help wanted" is much more humble, "patches welcome" is a common cry
when you just don't care enough to fix it yourself, and I don't
believe that's the message we want to be sending outside

I believe there's also an agreement to change the priority names as
mentioned above. Does anything prevent us from doing so?