Issue categorisation

[Tamschi]

I'd like to organise the issues a bit more, to make them easier to browse and hopefully prioritise.

I was thinking about introducing the following labels:

name	colour	description	example
feature	a blue	Features and feature requests that are specific to Bridgy Fed, not fully described by the protocols.	most DM-related functions
parity	yellow	Features supported by two or more protocols, but not yet bridged between them.	attached tags
compat	yellow	Protocol differences that need special handling.	AT => AP: escape HTML tags
bug	red	User-facing breakage and reliability issues within Bridgy Fed.	race conditions

Additionally, I'd like to add the following two labels for communication and priority:

name	colour	description	example
see other	grey	The issue was a duplicate or was fully merged into another issue.	issues newly closed for these reasons
safety	orange	Related to user safety.	blocking remote users via DM

@snarfed Does this look good to you? If yes I'd go through the open issues starting with the oldest.
It would likely mess with the 'Most recently updated' view, but I don't think there's really any way around that.

[Tamschi]

I'm not entirely sure about known. That "standard" name would be duplicate, but it always feels a bit disheartening when that's applied to an issue that did provide at least some new information.

[snarfed]

This sounds great! Thank you so much, I'm all for it.

I don't feel strongly about known vs duplicate, I'm ok with either. "See other" is another option. Up to you.

[Tamschi]

Alright, I'll take care of it.
I forgot that label names here can contain spaces 😅 – "see other" sound great, I'll edit it into the table so I don't forget.

(I'm not entirely sure when I'll be able to do this. Possibly this week, but more likely early in November.)

[Tamschi]

I think I'll quickly add the safety label where appropriate though, that should take little time at all.

[Tamschi]

I went ahead and created the labels for now (and applied safety to the five relevant open ones. I didn't apply it to #1248 since that errs safe now).

Some slight wording changes to the descriptions (length limit, clarification), which I've edited into the table above.

[Tamschi]

That should be all of them 😓
It was a bit more work than expected, but hopefully it makes a difference.

[snarfed]

It made a HUGE difference. Thank you so much!!!