Skip to content

Add major, minor, and patch labels to PRs, Issues #69

Description

@kenperkins

I think it would be nice to be able to label (and filter) PRs & issues, and to have some insight before even reviewing changes as to how they impact SemVer. There are a lot of issues and PRs that have already been submitted and there's little context to them on real or potential impact to SemVer.

I opened this in part to help to understand impact of an issue, say #66, which I assume to be major at such time as they're actually removed.

Activity

  1. indutny commented on Dec 4, 2014

    @indutny
    Member

    Good idea, +1

  2. brendanashworth commented on Dec 5, 2014

    @brendanashworth
    Contributor

    This would be a good addition and make it easier for a new contributor to help out. 👍

  3. nelsonpecora commented on Dec 5, 2014

    @nelsonpecora
    Contributor

    👍 I think that would be helpful for maintainers, contributors, and users (who watch PRs that they want/need)

  4. nelsonpecora commented on Dec 9, 2014

    @nelsonpecora
    Contributor

    I am not good at interacting with robots. Glad this is getting some traction, though!

  5. piscisaureus commented on Dec 9, 2014

    @piscisaureus
    Contributor

    +1 from me too.

    As possible refinement, we could tag issues "bug fix", "api change" and "api addition". I think that's more clear for people who aren't thinking about semver all day long.

  6. kenperkins commented on Dec 9, 2014

    @kenperkins
    ContributorAuthor

    @piscisaureus a risk of not being explicit with semver-matching labels is someone making a mistake and not realizing that there is an implicit meaning. For example, api-change doesn't always mean breaking.

  7. nelsonpecora commented on Dec 12, 2014

    @nelsonpecora
    Contributor

    Yeah, I'm wary of using non-semver terminology. major means that there's an api change, and that api change is breaking. It's much more defined and explicit.

  8. rvagg commented on Jan 12, 2015

    @rvagg
    Member

    We should make this happen, it's going to be really hard to track which number we should bump for each release beyond 1.0.0, it would be nice to just search through PRs for these labels.

    How about: semver-major, semver-minor, semver-patch and every PR must be labelled with one of these, just like the commits have to have the additional metadata in them. The person responsible for a release can then go and hound mergers who haven't labelled PRs between releases.

  9. nelsonpecora commented on Jan 12, 2015

    @nelsonpecora
    Contributor

    👍 to semver-major, semver-minor, and semver-patch

  10. chrisdickinson commented on Jan 12, 2015

    @chrisdickinson
    Contributor

    It would be sort of neat if we could automate the addition of labels by running the tests from the tip of iojs against the PR tip -- if they pass, we can safely label it minor or patch. Otherwise, it's a major bump.

    For now I don't see any problem with collaborators adding these labels where appropriate, the above suggestion is strictly a "for the future" sort of thing :)

  11. brendanashworth commented on Jan 12, 2015

    @brendanashworth
    Contributor

    +1 on the general idea, but from what @chrisdickinson is saying, we'd have
    to do it more reliably - a failed test could mean a major bump or just a
    bad PR. However I think these tags would be really sweet for managing the
    PRs.

    A repository I think does a great job managing PRs and issues would be
    TryGhost/Ghost, if anyone wants to take a look.

    On Monday, January 12, 2015, Chris Dickinson notifications@github.com
    wrote:

    It would be sort of neat if we could automate the addition of labels by
    running the tests from the tip of iojs against the PR tip -- if they pass,
    we can safely label it minor or patch. Otherwise, it's a major bump.

    For now I don't see any problem with collaborators adding these labels
    where appropriate, the above suggestion is strictly a "for the future" sort
    of thing :)

    —
    Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
    #69 (comment).

  12. Fishrock123 commented on Jan 23, 2015

    @Fishrock123
    Contributor

    We now have semver-minor and semver-major.

  13. kenperkins commented on Jan 23, 2015

    @kenperkins
    ContributorAuthor

    w00t! Thanks everyone.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions