-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Add grouping/filtering by PR meeting/high priority labels #10
Comments
I've been thinking about it a bit... We don't use high priority for PRs, only for issues (and this page doesn't track issues so far). That leaves "for pr meeting". Now, I could add it as a "team", but it doesn't provide much benefit over just opening a search like https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pulls?q=is%3Apr++is%3Aopen+label%3A%22for+pr+meeting%22+. What could be useful, is adding a filter "for PR meeting" that would only show PRs with that label assigned to each team/reviewer. What do you think? |
What's the best way to show experimental features so I can try them? I don't know. |
I'm afraid we don't have much in terms of different dev/staging/production environments 🙃 We should start from the problem that we are trying to solve. Given only one of the proposed labels is actually useful, what would be the use-case for it? Simply listing all the PR meeting tasks can be done with the link that I've provided above. Do we need more in-depth information that the team reports page gives, like how long it has been open and other details? What I'm thinking here, is that having "marked for PR meeting" as a generic filter can help each team open their list and see if they have any PRs that are marked. Having all of those PRs in a single united list is less useful for individual teams, or individual reviewers. |
Another related problem is what pull requests require pending work from Godot Engine organization / maintainers so they can be unblocked. |
Discussed on rocketchat about the review meeting virtual team and high priority virtual team.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: