Repository navigation
Spicier agenda changes - #915
Conversation
d7f3585 to
381a98e
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| .exclude_labels(&["beta-accepted"]) | ||
| .state(State::Any) | ||
| .repo("rust-lang/rust") | ||
| .repo("rust-lang/rfcs") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ", | ||
| chrono::Utc::now().format("%Y-%m-%d") | ||
| )?; | ||
| .labels(&["S-waiting-on-t-libs"]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be included w/ nominated items? We've used this in the past as a sort of "low-priority nomination", I'd keep it separate
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, basically thought process is that anything explicitly waiting on us should be treated as nominated (i.e., try to work on it every meeting), and radar is for the low-prio stuff. But also, a lot of people seem to use waiting-on-t-libs for FCPs, when there's a dedicated waiting-for-fcp.
I can separate it out, just, haven't seen it used recently in a way that's worth differentiating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe that suggests we should remove the S-waiting-on-t-libs label entirely? Either it should be nominated (and we choose how to prioritise it) or else one of the other labels should be used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either way we should make sure to document which labels are appropriate when.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So to me, the "waiting on libs" tag is still theoretically useful if there were some multi-team thing and the other teams on it wanted to clarify they're waiting on us. I just don't see it being a common case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough, but I do feel it should be on our radar if we're blocking other teams.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's why I put it under nominated, but we could move it to a separate category if people prefer.
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
(Ran through clippy::pedantic and decided to just accept most of its changes.)