~bzg/woof

2 2

[FR] Add more triggers

Details
Message ID
<87bkn27pzx.fsf@localhost>
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
I am now looking at
https://orgmode.org/list/CAL9aZkusXaNVCu7+nO-ic8SHhwVdOiXYtDyF=Gz7h+NoLaOZXQ@mail.gmail.com

It uses [FEATURE REQUEST] in the subject.
May Woof! also support such full-form triggers?

Something like:
1. [FEATURE]
2. [PROPOSAL]
3. [FEATURE REQUEST]
4. [REQUEST]
5. [DISCUSSION]

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
Details
Message ID
<87lem6jb9j.fsf@gnu.org>
In-Reply-To
<87bkn27pzx.fsf@localhost> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> It uses [FEATURE REQUEST] in the subject.
> May Woof! also support such full-form triggers?

Woof! instances can have custom subject prefixes for report types.

https://tracker.orgmode.org/source/emacs-orgmode/howto list accepted
prefixes right now for requests: FP, FR, RFC, RFE, TASK, POLL

We could locally add "FEATURE REQUEST", or "FEATURE PROPOSAL" but it
may be confusing to have too many prefixes, and trying to catch what
users will half-randomly try will not work.

Assuming a maintainer will be able to requalify an illformatted report
into a proper one (e.g. declare any email as "request"), what would be
really needed on top of FP, FR, RFC, RFE, TASK, POLL ?

> 1. [FEATURE]
> 2. [PROPOSAL]
> 3. [FEATURE REQUEST]
> 4. [REQUEST]
> 5. [DISCUSSION]

I don't like "FEATURE" because it is not specific enough: is it a
report about a feature, or a request for a new feature, a discussion
of an existing feature?

I don't like "DISCUSSION" because it is way too general too.

-- 
 Bastien
Details
Message ID
<875yd92ysu.fsf@localhost>
In-Reply-To
<87lem6jb9j.fsf@gnu.org> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> It uses [FEATURE REQUEST] in the subject.
>> May Woof! also support such full-form triggers?
>
> Woof! instances can have custom subject prefixes for report types.
>
> https://tracker.orgmode.org/source/emacs-orgmode/howto list accepted
> prefixes right now for requests: FP, FR, RFC, RFE, TASK, POLL
>
> We could locally add "FEATURE REQUEST", or "FEATURE PROPOSAL" but it
> may be confusing to have too many prefixes, and trying to catch what
> users will half-randomly try will not work.

Why is it confusing? We do not have to document all of them in howto,
but a good heuristics will not hurt. Also, the number of possible
prefixes users use in practice is not that large, at least not on Org
ML.

> Assuming a maintainer will be able to requalify an illformatted report
> into a proper one (e.g. declare any email as "request"), what would be
> really needed on top of FP, FR, RFC, RFE, TASK, POLL ?

I'd rather not have to do this job when we can create a programmatic
rule.

>> 1. [FEATURE]
>> 2. [PROPOSAL]
>> 3. [FEATURE REQUEST]
>> 4. [REQUEST]
>> 5. [DISCUSSION]
>
> I don't like "FEATURE" because it is not specific enough: is it a
> report about a feature, or a request for a new feature, a discussion
> of an existing feature?
>
> I don't like "DISCUSSION" because it is way too general too.

Sure.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)