On 29/07/2025 02:37, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
On 7/28/2025 7:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 06:15:53PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
On 7/28/2025 4:40 PM, Diederick C. Niehorster wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 4:21 PM Michael Niedermayer
<mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
regression: issue aaddresses a regression
bug: something is not working
This is inconsistent
Label X cannot sometimes mean "X is removed" and "X is added"
bug seems meaning that the PR adds a bug
regression seems meaning that the PR removes a regression
IMO this should be done consistently
a PR can have bugs and it can fix bugs
a PR can cause regressions and it can fix regressions
so lets rename the labels to bug_fix, regression_fix and add has_bug
and has_regression. The former two colored green, the latter two
colored red.
This sounds reasonable
[...]
So for an issue, the label would imply that it reports a bug or
regression,
and for a PR that it fixes it respectively.
Having two split labels for that seems a little unnecessary.
I dont know, i have only used forgejo for a few days
This is purely convention we want to use, there's no established
standard for that. Practically every project does something slightly
different.
Or we could just not use the bug/regession label on PRs, cause they
do seem
kinda off there.
thats reasonable too, but it probably should then also not be possible to
select them.
That is not an option, Labels apply to all issues, including PRs.
Probably a valid feature request to post.
Could you at least rename issue/bug and issue/regression to just bug and
regression?
A bug is an issue, and a regression is also an issue. Its very redundant.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
