Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
This seems fine if it helps clarify aspects of our workflow. I agree, it's not worth revising existing issues or PRs, but good to apply moving forward. I'd say go ahead and make this label change, Sam. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @samsrabin actually coupling "simple" and "bfb" was an intentional part of this label. The idea is that "simpleb4b" tags are things easy for anyone to work on. If something is NOT b4b we treat it totally different than something that is "b4b". We are more likely to have answer changes in seperate tags. Whereas "simpleb4b" are things that bringing together makes sense. It can be "b4b" and NOT simple and that's likely to be something you would NOT merge together with other "simpleb4b" changes. So "simpeb4b" is a way to identify things that are easy to put together. So I do like it as a single thing. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've gone ahead and added tag: simple and tag: bfb labels. All three labels are summarized here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It might be useful to separate the "tag: simple bfb" label into "tag: simple" and "tag: bfb". I thought about this because #2125 is bit-for-bit (as it only affects testing infrastructure) but it was not simple.
I don't think we'd have to retroactively go through existing issues/PRs with the tag to decide which they should get, but it could be useful going forward. We could even keep the existing label for issues/PRs that really are both simple and bit-for-bit.
What do y'all think?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions