[simd.bit] Wrap "bit-func" placeholder in \tcode

[eisenwave]

No description provided.

[eisenwave]

@tkoeppe are you removing tags from merged PRs in general, or do you feel like P2 was incorrect for this PR?

[tkoeppe]

I'm removing them in general. Once it's resolved I figured we don't need it tagged anymore.

Separately, I'm also wondering if we might want a "P0 "ready"" tag for things which essentially require no further material work...

[eisenwave]

I'm removing them in general. Once it's resolved I figured we don't need it tagged anymore.

Hmm okay, it seems like removing the labels would create an additional task though. If you look at the open issues and PRs, it doesn't really matter whether closed items exist that still have a priority label on them. Anyhow, I just found it surprising because I'm not sure what harm there is in keeping the label.

Separately, I'm also wondering if we might want a "P0 "ready"" tag for things which essentially require no further material work...

For PRs, I assume this would be communicated by the "approved" status from the chairs, or by you being assigned to the PR, right? The former can be searched for via review:approved. For issues, this would be communicated by the existence of a PR which closes the issue. Are there PRs and issues with these indicators that would not be P0?