Page 1 of 1

GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:45 am
by Vezzra
Someone (my bet is on Marcel ;)) has reworked the labels on github, and I consider the results a big improvement, so thumbs up! :D

I have one tiny little complaint though: Marcel, it looks like you renamed the "enhancement" label into "category:refactoring" - I don't think that this really fits the original label. The "enhancement" label was used for a wide variety of things, a lot of which probably would fall under "refactoring", but certainly not all. E.g. a PR adding a new species has also been labeled "enhancement", which has nothing to do with "refactoring". So I propose to rename "category:refactoring" to "category:enhancement", add "category:refactoring" as a new label and replace "category:enhancement" with "category:refactoring" at all issues/PRs where you think "refactoring" fits better.

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:39 pm
by adrian_broher
Someone (my bet is on Marcel ;)) has reworked the labels on github, and I consider the results a big improvement, so thumbs up! :D
Yeah, I'm guilty on that. I found the previous tagging 'concept' very annoying and saw this on another git project. Sorry for not at least notifying the team to this, but this 'shooting from the hip'-work style is just very hard for me to overcome.
Vezzra wrote:I have one tiny little complaint though: Marcel, it looks like you renamed the "enhancement" label into "category:refactoring" - I don't think that this really fits the original label. The "enhancement" label was used for a wide variety of things, a lot of which probably would fall under "refactoring", but certainly not all.
Well, the first time the label was introduced (I don't remember who added it) I always though of this as 'refactoring' and tagging refactoring issues most of the time like this. But looking at the actual tagging I don't know if the term 'enhancement' was chosen well and isn't just to broad. There are issues that were tagged as enhancement but are a bug/bugfix, or features that are were tagged as enhancement. There will never be issues that are intentional 'dehancements'. Your example of a new species I would classify as 'feature' but while labeling issues I found some issues that can't be labeled properly, so I'm open for suggestions what to use instead of 'enhancement' (or keeping it as is).

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:15 pm
by adrian_broher
From https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/ ... -242174547
Vezzra wrote:@adrianbroher: Not related to this PR per se, just taking it as an example: what category to use for this? It's not a refactoring or bug, and to label this as feature doesn't really fit IMO. It's more something like an extension/enhancement of an already existing thing, in this case the Dump function of the System class.

Personally I'd prefer to use "enhancement" for this kind of things. That ok with you, or would you prefer something else?
Well, good question. I would say it's a feature as it adds something to the application (features don't need to be user facing according to my interpretation).

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:24 pm
by Geoff the Medio
I'd think a "feature" should be user-visible, or at least content-scripter visible. A small bit more detail in a rarely-used dump function is not a feature, or even is a dump function. It's something used mostly internally to support other work / code / development.

This could be "engine internals", though I'm not sure about calling it an "engine"...

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:33 pm
by adrian_broher
Geoff the Medio wrote:I'd think a "feature" should be user-visible, or at least content-scripter visible. A small bit more detail in a rarely-used dump function is not a feature, or even is a dump function. It's something used mostly internally to support other work / code / development.

This could be "engine internals", though I'm not sure about calling it an "engine"...
Is there anything wrong with just "internals"? Otherwise I think this is a good suggestion for any non-user-facing feature.

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:43 pm
by Vezzra
It would not distinguish between something that is a new addition and something that is an enhancement/extension of an existing thing, but for stuff labelled "internal" that probably isn't necessary/desired. So I guess "internals" is just fine.

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:44 am
by Morlic
Regarding AI logic changes which are not exactly "features" but mostly "tweaking" of existing stuff, e.g. changing research order or changing some weighting/rating function, adding some details to consider etc.
What label is appropriate for that kind of changes? "Feature" seems far stretched if changes are minor. I would interpret that label as adding a new functionality not tweaking some existing one.

For balance fixes in game content etc. "category: Balancing" seems fair and easy enough. Not sure how the corresponding AI label could be named precisely. "AI logic" is kind of redundant with "component: AI" and I guess too specific... "Enhancement" seemed to kind of cover that stuff nicely. "Tweak" would also work but is just as nondescript.

Any better ideas?

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:43 am
by dbenage-cx
Some list of definitions for the differing labels would be greatly appreciated.
Specifically the components common, infrastructure and internal are not clearly different to me (even with the previous discussion on internal).

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:01 pm
by adrian_broher
Added a PR with at least some documentation. It probably only answers only your question regarding infrastructure, dbenage-cx. A review from everybody would be appreciated.

Re: GitHub Labels overhaul

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:00 pm
by dbenage-cx
Thank you very much, it is a big help.