Skip to content

Labels: update requirements for the "[Type]" labels #43263

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: trunk
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jeherve
Copy link
Member

@jeherve jeherve commented Apr 27, 2025

Fixes ARC-141

Proposed changes:

With the move to Linear, we no longer use the "[Type]" prefix for our type labels.. Let's update our requirements accordingly.

Notes

  • I will also do the same for other type labels in follow-up PRs.
  • We will continue to use a "Bug" label, but without the prefix because in Linear there is a concept of parent <> child label.
  • Once this is merged, I will update the labels in use in this repo and in other repos using the Repo Gardening action.
  • I will also update other tools and scripts that may expect a prefix.

Other information:

  • Have you written new tests for your changes, if applicable?
  • Have you checked the E2E test CI results, and verified that your changes do not break them?
  • Have you tested your changes on WordPress.com, if applicable (if so, you'll see a generated comment below with a script to run)?

Jetpack product discussion

  • pdXTV4-KR-p2

Does this pull request change what data or activity we track or use?

  • no

Testing instructions:

Check for typos and other uses of the label.

jeherve added 2 commits April 27, 2025 18:06
With the move to Linear, we no longer use the "[Type]" prefix for our type labels.. Let's update our requirements accordingly.
@jeherve jeherve self-assigned this Apr 27, 2025
@jeherve jeherve added [Status] In Progress [Pri] Normal Actions GitHub actions used to automate some of the work around releases and repository management labels Apr 27, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added [Action] Repo Gardening Github Action: manage PR and issues in your Open Source project Docs labels Apr 27, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 27, 2025

Thank you for your PR!

When contributing to Jetpack, we have a few suggestions that can help us test and review your patch:

  • ✅ Include a description of your PR changes.
  • ✅ Add a "[Status]" label (In Progress, Needs Review, ...).
  • ✅ Add a "[Type]" label (Bug, Enhancement, Janitorial, Task).
  • ✅ Add testing instructions.
  • ✅ Specify whether this PR includes any changes to data or privacy.
  • ✅ Add changelog entries to affected projects

This comment will be updated as you work on your PR and make changes. If you think that some of those checks are not needed for your PR, please explain why you think so. Thanks for cooperation 🤖


Follow this PR Review Process:

  1. Ensure all required checks appearing at the bottom of this PR are passing.
  2. Make sure to test your changes on all platforms that it applies to. You're responsible for the quality of the code you ship.
  3. You can use GitHub's Reviewers functionality to request a review.
  4. When it's reviewed and merged, you will be pinged in Slack to deploy the changes to WordPress.com simple once the build is done.

If you have questions about anything, reach out in #jetpack-developers for guidance!

Copy link
Contributor

@tbradsha tbradsha left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems reasonable, though I wonder if during the check we should also gracefully convert any [Type] Bug labels to Bug?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Action] Repo Gardening Github Action: manage PR and issues in your Open Source project Actions GitHub actions used to automate some of the work around releases and repository management Docs [Pri] Normal [Status] In Progress [Type] Janitorial
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants