ddnet
ddnet copied to clipboard
ddnet
Discussion: Only mark "accepted feature requests" as "enhancement"
This way, people don't accidentally implement them if we haven't even decided whether we want them. Example: #5091.
How about an "accepted" and a second "waiting for implementation" and a third "implementation ongoing" label?
Where's the difference between "accepted" and "waiting for implementation"?
For "implementation ongoing", we can assign someone to the issue, like deen does sometimes.
Ah sorry, you are right, "waiting for implementation" is not necessary because it is obviously if it is accepted, and "implementation ongoing" can be replaced using assingments.
Okay, I still want to do something like this. It's bad that we have random feature requests where we'd probably decline PRs and then actual issues or feature requests that we accepted. It's bad that we have no way to distinguish them.
I'd prefer to mark accepted feature as "todo" rather than enhancement.
The problem is that the default state for issues is that they're something we want to do, so I'd prefer a label that shows that a feature request isn't accepted yet.
I think a needs-discussion tag sounds better for when we are unsure a feature should be implemented or not.
What would be the difference between "discussion" and "needs-discussion" for example on my new issues (that are basically requests by others) I added to all the discussion tag, so we can discuss if we want it, if it usefull and discuss ideas and problems for posible implementation. At least thats what I thought by adding that tag.
For me "discussion" is more for issues like this, and for example to decide on code conventions.
"needs-discussion" requires the need of a discussion before implementing/closing the issue/feature, in my opinion.
Should we add to every old and new feature request a needs discussion label, that then gets based of the result of the discussion converted into a accepted request label or the issue gets closed and marked with rejected request label?
On another hand, to prevent confusion, "discussion" label maybe should be renamed to "meta-discussion"
I don't really see the need for https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/labels/feature-accepted and https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/labels/feature-rejected labels. Rejected feature requests get closed with appropriate reasoning and GitHub also provides two ways to close issues (close as completed, close as not planned).
I consider the presence of any non-meta label on issues as them being implicitly accepted. Issues with https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/labels/needs-discussion label have been triaged but a dicussion is necessary before implementing. Issues without label either have not been triaged, have been forgotten, or will likely be rejected.
