launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Robert Collins
<robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>>>

Sorry for the delay in response.

I want to re-iterate that I think it's a good idea to revisit our tags.

>> ...
>>> 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).
>

Sure, patch-tracking is a form of code review, but bugs in the way the
bug tracker handles patches rarely have anything to do with bugs in
the code-review system. This makes me think that we have a difference
over what tags are or what they should be used for or something.

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

Not really, because I still don't have a good idea of what official
tags we'd end up with.

My main hesitation over this proposal is I'm afraid the outcome will
be an official breakdown of Launchpad into components, while the
discussion has been about what tags we'll change. Maybe I don't need
to worry about that. Having a list of the proposed new set of official
tags would help with that, I think.

cheers,
jml