Improve label versions triaging - #1613
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Stan Ulbrych <89152624+StanFromIreland@users.noreply.github.com>
| - If we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0` and | ||
| if a feature was implemented in its *alpha* period but requires a | ||
| non-trivial extension (hence a new *feature* issue), this new | ||
| feature issue is given the :samp:`3.{N}` label as the latest | ||
| version under development would now be :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`. | ||
|
|
||
| To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is | ||
| approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label could also be applied. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, not sure if we need this? And I'm not sure about the triage label suggestion, it doesn't really say anything more than "issue is accepted by a triager".
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, it's for a visual tag. Sometimes I don't remember the issues I've triaged. And if I see an issue with weird label I would say "oh this one could have been mistriaged maybe". But with a triaged label, I know that I don't need to change the labels (same for when I lack a topic-* or a directory for an issue; when there is just "type-bug" it's kind of .. hard to know that there is actually a project associated to the issue; projects can't be seen on the issue page)
Sorry, something went wrong.
| The available version labels (with the form :samp:`3.{N}`) are updated | ||
| whenever new feature releases are created or retired. | ||
|
|
||
| Recommendations |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add a recommendation about whether to keep type-bug in type-security issues (are they truly redundant?)?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that the place for that is beside the type-security doc?
Sorry, something went wrong.
StanFromIreland
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
| - If we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0` and | ||
| if a feature was implemented in its *alpha* period but requires a | ||
| non-trivial extension (hence a new *feature* issue), this new | ||
| feature issue is given the :samp:`3.{N}` label as the latest | ||
| version under development would now be :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`. | ||
|
|
||
| To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is | ||
| approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label can also be applied. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - If we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0` and | |
| if a feature was implemented in its *alpha* period but requires a | |
| non-trivial extension (hence a new *feature* issue), this new | |
| feature issue is given the :samp:`3.{N}` label as the latest | |
| version under development would now be :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`. | |
| To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is | |
| approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label can also be applied. | |
| - Assume that we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0`, | |
| that is, the latest version under development is :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`. | |
| If a feature implemented in the *alpha* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0` | |
| requires a non-trivial extension, a *new* feature issue must be | |
| created and be given the :samp:`3.{N}` label. | |
| To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is | |
| approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label can also be applied. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hugovk Something like this?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: another acceptable 3.N label is when we implement a PEP. It's good to have both feature & 3.N labels at the same time because the PEP is meant to be implemented in that version.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit confused :)
Filling in numbers to make this concrete:
Assume that we are currently in the beta period of 3.14.0,
that is, the latest version under development is 3.15.0a1.
If a feature implemented in the alpha period of 3.14.0
requires a non-trivial extension, a new feature issue must be
created and be given the 3.14 label.
The 3.14 beta was May to July 2025.
3.15 was still in pre-alpha, versioned 3.15.0a0 (from May to October 2025).
Did you mean 3.{N+1}.0a0 rather than 3.{N+1}.0a1?
In any case, I'm not sure we really need to document such exceptional things.
(Nit: "there are a few exceptional cases" but then we list just one case.)
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I meant 3.15.0.a0 sorry.
I think we need to document at least this case because we explicitly state that betas are feature frozen. As for the list, I thought I would have more but I do not think there will be more so I can rephrase this!
Sorry, something went wrong.
Some people asked me about how I actually apply my labels while triaging and I think I could actually share my workflow in the devguide instead for future triaging. I especially think that it's not necessary for bugs that span across all active versions to be labelled with the all labels... Ideally, I would have wanted a 3.X+ tag which implies that the bug started appearing in 3.X, and a bot would be able to automate the labels every time a new one is added but this would be a separate issue.
cc @hugovk
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-devguide--1613.org.readthedocs.build/