Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:86415 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56867 invoked from network); 27 May 2015 23:17:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 May 2015 23:17:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.15.19 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.15.19] ([212.227.15.19:51829] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E9/72-42012-57056655 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 19:17:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([95.89.139.132]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZynd-1ZPi3h4Bht-00lpco; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:17:05 +0200 Message-ID: <55665077.6040004@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 01:17:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anatol Belski , 'Internals' References: <063f01d09881$2bbf12d0$833d3870$@belski.net> In-Reply-To: <063f01d09881$2bbf12d0$833d3870$@belski.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:5Ne1hPVygmAyhzD3guSqDq6xlA3X8GkHDXIOb/zf3iCMlhhKfK/ iH2H5VMdJykCwh6da+uPQm+v5670YYqdPV3LN5UopxiWPTaCd7dmMh6kQfx6+LJlVeLqgJI UrboN7+XXfOIvQp9ud3LqzbzeauaXangA+SSBT423p4hZLdsjAyEhwSJHiTSvwHawpHpDYR tqm15b388H1WBZr3q9CUw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:wEFtA59gzd4=:NebyQkW+kcQ81GVwqQDxng qgz9dNNhZMny4YIJBnB1W7x/C6SvJUFcTeQLxuQ+h8k3eQbVt/nOTjxX8C7c5kN5Ew6i1CU5x zYuLyDV1iUgFSKgdU9ByzkSWsHiXwHMWBRGlcFZd1Q7M8IURP+UZAebBFdwLBBpBqIK/z2R1m 32PIejBAYh1qt3+xRFI4M0kHMw9Z9pIhKkAbylO+ZNa6sdT8PP+gk3aKJ2kpWbIhQZkWNvJ6w py6lubQ3fFBBCc8iz/hxBrRzNx9sxqEbt9mN4nUKz5F9c/tr1QHb/+J6/3VCkn+OXDXLT/Tdc PaKdcy0ZTRqv7KGeSeFg3hhLE+Y+cB5PpjQ/v8l3qd8okdy3dC2UfUBhNS+eAncMW5xxP1Sx3 zjJqPPR8plSgzA4AnAfzgwlptTMkkm3Zzj+Y8OtZHelNaPRURy0dg09zsnCScVUPYE6IZSeZx iK989/X6OEvDcPmZJScuoGaZqBtc998Ec/yDAyT9lhESvZBFBJy1ZS6brPoOn1TJF/4Fo2Z7l gTF5EVyvu0/luzvjPeRtyEPfyju+qyYGQ7WcMUtF36Z+lpwurAKEdZlpIxpCIdzGkNBuMvyx4 ZZcPKovgKp8nzOp04QYfQh9sCcJXiH8eSu2MrdjLLLUzA+37Ta2ETRR5/bq4B+XMfAgrLrBN9 Sjz3LFpNbfvzZ27dbzizCLOa64G1zQt4+dJnFU8Mkc9lWEAti/JRHbWZ8akFHR04/PXA= Subject: Re: Pull request labels handling From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) Anatol Belski wrote: > the PRs on github are already being labeled. Multiple labels are possible. > However the github ACLs lack on granularity > https://help.github.com/articles/permission-levels-for-an-organization-repos > itory/ . Due to that, while being a useful feature, labeling is only > available for project admins or alike. Now with PHP7 such labeling becomes > probably even more sense as we'll need to handle BC breaks and other > situations which would need more testing and care. So the amount of work to > evaluate and review PRs will grow while the "work team" probably not. > > To improve this, here's an idea originally coming from Ferenc. And it is > simple - the labeling feature could be integrated with our systems using the > github API. That would allow to achieve more granularity on who is allowed > to label. AFAIR there was already some people willing to do labeling, so > that were a great possibility to build such a team. Such pre evaluating and > labeling could possibly prevent some awkward situations, help to sort out > potential issues and BC breaches. > > Thus asking for opinions. As it stands completely open - does this idea > sound eligible, how can it be integrated, who is yet up for the pre > evaluation/labeling job? Or any other propositions. In my humble opinion it would be great if it's feasible. There is also the related "GitHub Pull Requests Triage Team" RFC[1] – maybe it's worth to revive it, but it appears to me all this can be done without an (approved) RFC. [1] -- Christoph M. Becker