Clean up labels

[KarlWernersson]

Hi I was asked to clean up the labels for the issues, the current ones can be viewed here
https://github.com/modelica/fmi-standard/issues/labels

My proposal is to

bug: remove, its as standard document not code. What as bug is not rely clear. And bug is not the right word
CI: keep (for issues with CI)
co-simulation: keep
discussion: keep
documents: remove, or someone please specify
duplicate: keep
enhancement: keep
FCP: either split into specific fcp numbers or remove
good first issue: remove
help wanted: remove -> use discussion
invalid: remove
model-exchange: keep
needs poll: remove -> use discussion or vice versa
remove all priorities: tickets should be resolved or decided to be moved out of a milestone before the milestone is finished. Priorities is somewhat subjective.
question: remove
reference-fmus: keep
specification: remove since most things are sorted here, and the risk is high for issues missing this label that should have it
task:keep
tbd:keep
wontfix: keep or change to invalid

What are your thought on this?

[t-sommer]

Isn't needs poll and tbd more or less the same (= to be decided at the next meeting)? They could maybe even be merged with discussion.

[t-sommer]

enhancement could be renamed to feature to be consistent with the branch names (feature/*)

[KarlWernersson]

Poll (at least how its used in FMI meetings) is a guide to show the general view so for me it more goes into discussion, while tbd is something that shall be decided.
I use tbd as a tag for issues that I think are ready for but needs a decision.

[beutlich]

I am in strong favour to keep the GitHub default labels: bug, invalid, enhancement, question, discussion, duplicate

[t-sommer]

Since we don't have any code (except for the header files), what is a bug?

[KarlWernersson]

@beutlich In that case we should have some description to help understand when you should use them, I am also confused about bug for the standard, invalid could replace wontfix.
When would you use question?

[beutlich]

• Example for bug: inconsistency between description and state machine #338
• Invalid means an issue that has no relevance for the FMI spec., e.g. if submitted an issue on the compliance checker or web site or xc.
• Issues labeled by question are where any decision or clarification is open an undecided, yet. Thus, there should be no question open if you close such a ticket: Examles: https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaStandardLibrary/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aquestion

[KarlWernersson]

ok Thanks
Its more clear now, i still feel that the bug is not verry good for the standard document, but I'm ok with keeping it.

So an update would be

bug: keep
CI: keep (for issues with CI)
co-simulation: keep
discussion: keep
documents: remove, or someone please specify
duplicate: keep
enhancement: keep
FCP: either split into specific fcp numbers or remove
good first issue: remove
help wanted: remove -> use discussion
invalid: keep
model-exchange: keep
needs poll: remove -> use discussion or question
remove all priorities: tickets should be resolved or decided to be moved out of a milestone before the milestone is finished. Priorities is somewhat subjective.
question: keep (more unsure than discussion)
reference-fmus: keep
specification: remove since most things are sorted here, and the risk is high for issues missing this label that should have it
task:keep
tbd:keep
wontfix: keep

Does this looks better?

[beutlich]

Fine for me now with the following additional comments

• Not sure if tbd and question mean the same thing. I'll let it to you.
• I thought FCP is on issues targeting the FCP process itself, not on concrete FMI change proposals. Since it is currently not used this way, remove it.

[t-sommer]

Regarding the FCPs see also #487

[beutlich]

Regarding the FCPs see also #487

Right. But w/o any label to filter.

[KarlWernersson]

My intention with the tbd label was to mark them ready for a decision during a meeting. Once the decision is made change the label from tbd to task.
Tbd is probably not the best name, but the best I could think of at the moment that was short.
If you think question covers that we could use it instead but as I understand it, it is more open.

[beutlich]

tbd is for to be decided or to be done or to be determined?

[KarlWernersson]

My English is probably not good enough to give a 100% accurate answer to that question.
Not to be done. that’s more what I have marked as task.
What I mean is ready for decision however that’s not a nice label. The idea is to easily sort things that will be resolved soon one can easily sort those issues and examine them to prepare for a meeting, if a 2.0.1 meeting cannot come to a decision maybe the label will be pushed back to discussion?
Work flow Discussion->tbd->task

[beutlich]

OK, we need to be more specific then:

• question for unclear topic
• tbd for any undecided topic. I'd rename it to the more familia needs input though.

[pmai]

I've gone through all issues labeled with one of the P:* flags, as decided today, and they have all been assigned to milestones (nearly all of them were already), except for #408 and #427, which I've asked @t-sommer to move to the cross-check repo, since they do not deal with standard issues.

So once that's done, I think we can safely remove the P:* flags, without loosing information.

[pmai]

On the label discussion itself: I think we should have something like the tbd flag, but call it explicitly Needs Decision (or something like this, that's why I had needs poll) for issues which do not need any kind of general discussions or input anymore but are ripe for a final face to face (phone 2 phone) discussion and decision in the FMI technical meeting (with maybe then escalation to steering comittee, where needed). All issues flagged like this are candidates for the agenda of the next FMI technical meeting.

All in all, with a renaming of tbd to make it more clear, I like @KarlWernersson 's proposal.

[chrbertsch]

According to the Regensburg design meeting (see minutes: https://github.com/modelica/fmi-design/tree/master/Meetings/2019-03-06-FMI-Design-Meeting-Regensburg), Torsten will tidy up the labels.

Shall we have special label for issues like this itself called "infrastructure"?

[t-sommer]

I think we can use CI for all infrastructure related issues

[t-sommer]

Since we moved to polls instead of SC votes, can't we just merge all tbd into needs poll and use the workflow discussion -> needs poll (if necessary) -> task?

[chrbertsch]

The workflow is fine for me. But we should sort the tbd-labeled issues, if they really need a poll or can be moved to discussion or tbd.
CI is fine for me (though it would be more intuitive to move the CI-related topics to an infrastructure topic. The important thing is that we can differentiate via filters about open issues of the standard and other stuff)

[t-sommer]

Okay with me, but I would rather rename CI to infrastructure instead of having two.

[chrbertsch]

OK.
I would keep the help wanted, as it especially can be used for large tasks.

[chrbertsch]

Regular design meeting:
Move tbd to discussion.
Move specification to documents

[chrbertsch]

Rename CI to infrastructure

[chrbertsch]

Proposal to remove the labels for old Design meeting (e.g. Lund2019).

[chrbertsch]

Proposing to delete the following labels:

• Lund 2019
• DesignMeetingRenningen2019
• co-simulation (as we otherwise would also need many similar labels)
• specification (as we have documents)

And keeping the rest.

Any objections?

[andreas-junghanns]

Proposing to delete the following labels:
...
Any objections?

Agreed.

[chrbertsch]

Done