launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Robert Collins <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Robert Collins
> <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'd like to cleanup our tags a little - we have 151 official tags. I
>> don't mean to stop folk using arbitrary tags, just make the set we're
>> /working with/ a little clearer and crisper: I don't think there is a
>> lot of value making every single thing have a blessed tags. We should
>> have tags for broad areas and for current LEPs.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Please either ignore this mail (and I'll act on it next week). Or
>> reply telling my part of it is a problem so I can revise my proposal
>> and/or do things differently.
>>
>
> Are you aware of <https://dev.launchpad.net/LaunchpadBugTags>? Are you
> planning on updating that as well?

Huh, I'd forgotten about it. We could just use that to non-officialise
tags not listed there.

>> I'd like add the following official tags (helping to separate things):
>> branches
>> codehosting
>> publish
>> registry
>> security
>> soyuz
>> stakeholder
>> translations
>>
>
> I don't understand the thinking behind this list. Why pick "soyuz" as
> a tag when there are many components that make it up? What does
> "registry" mean?

I was trying to transcribe/migrate rather than starting from scratch.
I had the starting assumption that all the official tags had some
important use in the past, and that the high frequency ones in
particular needed to be preserved even if there wasn't a known
rationale for it.

> ...
>> I'd like to delete the following tags as seeming not carrying enough
>> use to be *official tags* in the project - they would stay on the
>> relevant bugs, but not be always shown in the portlet, nor be offered
>> in typeahead in the bug tags widget.
>>
>
> A lot of these are cleanups which are obviously good ideas. I don't
> know what criteria you are using to decide that one tag is worthy of
> being official and another is not. Why is 'canonical-losa-lp' to stay
> official but 'oem-services' not? Why is 'patch-tracking' not worthy of
> being official when 'codehosting' is? You say "broad area" above, but
> I would have thought that "bug tags" were a broad area.

Hunch, guesswork. For your specific examples:
canonical-losa-lp is important because we use it to mark things we
want to do for operational efficiency/robustness, and we need to know
how many things are affecting that.
oem-services isn't because while we care about things affecting
stakeholders (which is why I proposed a new stakeholder official tag),
the specific stakeholder isn't something we need to report on &
trivially show. patch-tracking I folded into code review, because
patch tracking was intended as a form of code review. codehosting is a
broad area (as is code review).

Are you happy with me actioning what I listed (modified by Julian and
Curtis' suggestions)?

-Rob