New GH issue types

[bryevdv]

Looks like GH has added their own "type" field to issue (and @mattpap I assume has started using them):

This is a welcome addition and I'd be happy to start using these and stop using (and eventually remove) our home-grown "type" labels. (I would not like the long-term solution to be "use both"). I guess the one wrinkle is that AFAICT the "type" field has specifically only been added to issues, and not to PRs. We have a notion of "issue PRs"(i.e. typically small PRs without a corresponding issue). What would we do about those? I think I'd be fine just demanding that every PR has an issue, even if the issue is created after the PR. cc @bokeh/dev

[mattpap]

I started using them along with sub-issues (I think both were enabled at the same time) to experiment with both, while keeping the original approach. I was actually about to propose we start using this more formally and eventually replace the old system. I hope there's some automated approach, similar to the thread locking bot, to convert existing issues.

We have a notion of "issue PRs". (...) I think I'd be fine just demanding that every PR has an issue, even if the issue is created after the PR

I think it wouldn't hurt to have issues for all PRs. Personally I'm trying to force my self to start issues before I start PRs, for better transparency, especially since the new CZI R6 started.

Perhaps as an orthogonal matter, but I would like to propose we reorganize, specifically shorten, other labels. I'm not sure about specifics right now, but I think we could replace e.g. tag: API: models with simply api: models. I suppose I will start a separate discussion for this.

[bryevdv]

I hope there's some automated approach, similar to the thread locking bot, to convert existing issues.

I am sure if nothing else we could write a small script to update all the old issues using GH APIs. I guess I'd like to obtain some confidence that a bulk update could be performed without triggering tens of thousands of notification for lots of people, though. (I don't think label changes do that, but I'm not 100% certain).

I think it wouldn't hurt to have issues for all PRs.

OK maybe let's bring it up at the next weekly. If there is general agreement we can start by making an issue for this. Minimally update the BEP to remove the verbiage around issue PRs and just state that every PR needs an issue. But we'd probably also need some small actual code changes to the milestone script as well.

[pavithraes]

We decided to move forward with this proposal in the weekly sync on 26th Feb.

I've updated BEP 1 as requested: https://github.com/bokeh/bokeh/wiki/BEP-1:-Issues-and-PRs-management