Yes, I agree that it's helpful for *submitters* to categorise their issue, but we do need to make the categories quite clear and simple. I don't see any need for the Component/Tool distinction: "Jenkins" is an important component of our workflow, even though it's a piece of software. "ODD" is deeply ambiguous: are my changes to pure ODD changes to tools, or to the content of the Guidelines? (Both, in practice) But enough sniping. Here are my alternative suggestions for this categorization label. 1. Call the label "TOPIC" 2. Suggested values are : "P5", "P5 prose", "Other doc" (this for issues around e.g. TEI Bare or TEI Lite), "TEIC Website", "Membership" (for admin enquiries etc.), "Roma", "Jenkins", "Stylesheets", "Oxgarage", "oXygen", "SIG" as before "P6 suggestion" Lou On 14/12/15 16:28, Mylonas, Elli wrote:
And that the Component/Tool/SIG category is more problematic.
Component: Core Schema ---suggest moving to Component: TEI Schema Component: Guidelines & Documentation Component: ODD Component: Website Tool: Jenkins Tool: Oxgarage Tool: Oxygen Tool: Roma Tool: Stylesheets
SIG
In a sense, the tags are for the submitter of the FR or Bug to allow us to understand what they are talking about, and also helping us do some quick sorting. They may be a sign that the issue has to be moved somewhere else, and that's quite useful. These tags are derived from existing ones that submitters used
It's very useful to work on the vocabulary in order t make it clearer, and perhaps some larger categories within Tools or Component.
thanks, --elli