On 5/12/20, James <pkx1...@posteo.net> wrote: > It was't blind Valentin, He did explain why he reverted it. > Be fair.
*Cough* If the point is to facilitate merge requests, I certainly can understand why Patch::* labels need to be at the top of the list; then again, rearranging them is easy enough without “reverting”, as I said, anything and everything. (Furthermore, I have to wonder about the order in which they are now: in order of priority, "push", "countdown", "review", ""new", "waiting", "needs_work" -- how does that make any sense? The order I suggested was the one we had on SourceForge, starting with "new" -- but that got reverted with the rest.) OTOH, since this is _also_ a bug tracker, then Type::* and Statuf::* labels should also, IMO, be prioritized (albeit at a lower level than patches) since this is what quite a few contributors are gonna need -- speaking as one of the former Lily bug meisters here; I used to spend a _lot_ of time daily on the Google tracker. I did offer a rationale as to what I’d been doing in my previous message; if we’re talking about “fairness” and “discussing” stuff, then reverting stuff and disregarding proposals is hardly the way to go. V.
