444 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
444 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
# Workflow labels
|
|
|
|
To allow for asynchronous issue handling, we use [milestones][milestones-page]
|
|
and [labels][labels-page]. Leads and product managers handle most of the
|
|
scheduling into milestones. Labelling is a task for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Most issues will have labels for at least one of the following:
|
|
|
|
- Type: ~feature, ~bug, ~customer, etc.
|
|
- Subject: ~wiki, ~"Container Registry", ~ldap, ~api, ~frontend, etc.
|
|
- Team: ~Plan, ~Manage, ~Quality, etc.
|
|
- Stage: ~"devops:plan", ~"devops:create", etc.
|
|
- Release Scoping: ~Deliverable, ~Stretch, ~"Next Patch Release"
|
|
- Priority: ~P1, ~P2, ~P3, ~P4
|
|
- Severity: ~S1, ~S2, ~S3, ~S4
|
|
|
|
All labels, their meaning and priority are defined on the
|
|
[labels page][labels-page].
|
|
|
|
If you come across an issue that has none of these, and you're allowed to set
|
|
labels, you can _always_ add the team and type, and often also the subject.
|
|
|
|
[milestones-page]: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/milestones
|
|
|
|
## Type labels
|
|
|
|
Type labels are very important. They define what kind of issue this is. Every
|
|
issue should have one or more.
|
|
|
|
Examples of type labels are ~feature, ~bug, ~customer, ~security,
|
|
and ~direction.
|
|
|
|
A number of type labels have a priority assigned to them, which automatically
|
|
makes them float to the top, depending on their importance.
|
|
|
|
Type labels are always lowercase, and can have any color, besides blue (which is
|
|
already reserved for subject labels).
|
|
|
|
The descriptions on the [labels page][labels-page] explain what falls under each type label.
|
|
|
|
## Subject labels
|
|
|
|
Subject labels are labels that define what area or feature of GitLab this issue
|
|
hits. They are not always necessary, but very convenient.
|
|
|
|
Examples of subject labels are ~wiki, ~ldap, ~api,
|
|
~issues, ~"merge requests", ~labels, and ~"Container Registry".
|
|
|
|
If you are an expert in a particular area, it makes it easier to find issues to
|
|
work on. You can also subscribe to those labels to receive an email each time an
|
|
issue is labeled with a subject label corresponding to your expertise.
|
|
|
|
Subject labels are always all-lowercase.
|
|
|
|
## Team labels
|
|
|
|
Team labels specify what team is responsible for this issue.
|
|
Assigning a team label makes sure issues get the attention of the appropriate
|
|
people.
|
|
|
|
The current team labels are:
|
|
|
|
- ~Configure
|
|
- ~Create
|
|
- ~Defend
|
|
- ~Distribution
|
|
- ~Documentation
|
|
- ~Geo
|
|
- ~Gitaly
|
|
- ~Growth
|
|
- ~Manage
|
|
- ~Monitor
|
|
- ~Plan
|
|
- ~Quality
|
|
- ~Release
|
|
- ~Secure
|
|
- ~UX
|
|
- ~Verify
|
|
|
|
The descriptions on the [labels page][labels-page] explain what falls under the
|
|
responsibility of each team.
|
|
|
|
Within those team labels, we also have the ~backend and ~frontend labels to
|
|
indicate if an issue needs backend work, frontend work, or both.
|
|
|
|
Team labels are always capitalized so that they show up as the first label for
|
|
any issue.
|
|
|
|
## Stage labels
|
|
|
|
Stage labels specify which [DevOps stage][devops-stages] the issue belongs to.
|
|
|
|
The current stage labels are:
|
|
|
|
- ~"devops::manage"
|
|
- ~"devops::plan"
|
|
- ~"devops::create"
|
|
- ~"devops::verify"
|
|
- ~"devops::package"
|
|
- ~"devops::release"
|
|
- ~"devops::configure"
|
|
- ~"devops::monitor"
|
|
- ~"devops::secure"
|
|
- ~"devops::defend"
|
|
- ~"devops::growth"
|
|
- ~"devops::enablement"
|
|
|
|
These labels are [scoped labels](../../user/project/labels.md#scoped-labels-premium)
|
|
and thus are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
They differ from the [Team labels](#team-labels) because teams may work on
|
|
issues outside their stage.
|
|
|
|
Normally there is a 1:1 relationship between Stage labels and Team labels, but
|
|
any issue can be picked up by any team, depending on current priorities.
|
|
So, an issue labeled ~"devops:create" may be scheduled by the ~Plan team, for
|
|
example. In such cases, it's usual to include both team labels so each team can
|
|
be aware of the progress.
|
|
|
|
The Stage labels are used to generate the [direction pages][direction-pages] automatically.
|
|
|
|
[devops-stages]: https://about.gitlab.com/direction/#devops-stages
|
|
[direction-pages]: https://about.gitlab.com/direction/
|
|
|
|
## Group labels
|
|
|
|
Group labels specify which [groups][structure-groups] the issue belongs to.
|
|
|
|
Examples include:
|
|
|
|
- ~"group::control"
|
|
- ~"group::editor"
|
|
|
|
These labels are [scoped labels](../../user/project/labels.md#scoped-labels-premium)
|
|
and thus are mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
Groups are nested beneath a particular stage, so only one stage label and one group label
|
|
can be applied to a single issue. You can find the groups listed in the
|
|
[Product Categories pages][product-categories].
|
|
|
|
[structure-groups]: https://about.gitlab.com/company/team/structure/#groups
|
|
[product-categories]: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/
|
|
|
|
## Release Scoping labels
|
|
|
|
Release Scoping labels help us clearly communicate expectations of the work for the
|
|
release. There are three levels of Release Scoping labels:
|
|
|
|
- ~Deliverable: Issues that are expected to be delivered in the current
|
|
milestone.
|
|
- ~Stretch: Issues that are a stretch goal for delivering in the current
|
|
milestone. If these issues are not done in the current release, they will
|
|
strongly be considered for the next release.
|
|
- ~"Next Patch Release": Issues to put in the next patch release. Work on these
|
|
first, and add the "Pick Into X" label to the merge request, along with the
|
|
appropriate milestone.
|
|
|
|
Each issue scheduled for the current milestone should be labeled ~Deliverable
|
|
or ~"Stretch". Any open issue for a previous milestone should be labeled
|
|
~"Next Patch Release", or otherwise rescheduled to a different milestone.
|
|
|
|
### Priority labels
|
|
|
|
Priority labels help us define the time a ~bug fix should be completed. Priority determines how quickly the defect turnaround time must be.
|
|
If there are multiple defects, the priority decides which defect has to be fixed immediately versus later.
|
|
This label documents the planned timeline & urgency which is used to measure against our actual SLA on delivering ~bug fixes.
|
|
|
|
| Label | Meaning | Defect SLA (applies only to ~bug and ~security defects) |
|
|
|-------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| ~P1 | Urgent Priority | The current release + potentially immediate hotfix to GitLab.com (30 days) |
|
|
| ~P2 | High Priority | The next release (60 days) |
|
|
| ~P3 | Medium Priority | Within the next 3 releases (approx one quarter or 90 days) |
|
|
| ~P4 | Low Priority | Anything outside the next 3 releases (more than one quarter or 120 days) |
|
|
|
|
If an issue seems to fall between two priority labels, assign it to the higher-
|
|
priority label.
|
|
|
|
## Severity labels
|
|
|
|
Severity labels help us clearly communicate the impact of a ~bug on users.
|
|
|
|
| Label | Meaning | Impact on Functionality | Example |
|
|
|-------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------|
|
|
| ~S1 | Blocker | Outage, broken feature with no workaround | Unable to create an issue. Data corruption/loss. Security breach. |
|
|
| ~S2 | Critical Severity | Broken Feature, workaround too complex & unacceptable | Can push commits, but only via the command line. |
|
|
| ~S3 | Major Severity | Broken Feature, workaround acceptable | Can create merge requests only from the Merge Requests page, not through the Issue. |
|
|
| ~S4 | Low Severity | Functionality inconvenience or cosmetic issue | Label colors are incorrect / not being displayed. |
|
|
|
|
If an issue seems to fall between two severity labels, even taking the
|
|
[severity impact guidance](#severity-impact-guidance) into account, assign
|
|
it to the higher-severity label.
|
|
|
|
### Severity impact guidance
|
|
|
|
Severity levels can be applied further depending on the facet of the impact; e.g. Affected customers, GitLab.com availability, performance and etc. The below is a guideline.
|
|
|
|
| Severity | Affected Customers/Users | GitLab.com Availability | Performance Degradation |
|
|
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|
|
| ~S1 | >50% users affected (possible company extinction level event) | Significant impact on all of GitLab.com | |
|
|
| ~S2 | Many users or multiple paid customers affected (but not apocalyptic)| Significant impact on large portions of GitLab.com | Degradation is guaranteed to occur in the near future |
|
|
| ~S3 | A few users or a single paid customer affected | Limited impact on important portions of GitLab.com | Degradation is likely to occur in the near future |
|
|
| ~S4 | No paid users/customer affected, or expected to in the near future | Minor impact on GitLab.com | Degradation _may_ occur but it's not likely |
|
|
|
|
## Label for community contributors
|
|
|
|
Issues that are beneficial to our users, 'nice to haves', that we currently do
|
|
not have the capacity for or want to give the priority to, are labeled as
|
|
~"Accepting merge requests", so the community can make a contribution.
|
|
|
|
Community contributors can submit merge requests for any issue they want, but
|
|
the ~"Accepting merge requests" label has a special meaning. It points to
|
|
changes that:
|
|
|
|
1. We already agreed on,
|
|
1. Are well-defined,
|
|
1. Are likely to get accepted by a maintainer.
|
|
|
|
We want to avoid a situation when a contributor picks an
|
|
~"Accepting merge requests" issue and then their merge request gets closed,
|
|
because we realize that it does not fit our vision, or we want to solve it in a
|
|
different way.
|
|
|
|
We add the ~"Accepting merge requests" label to:
|
|
|
|
- Low priority ~bug issues (i.e. we do not add it to the bugs that we want to
|
|
solve in the ~"Next Patch Release")
|
|
- Small ~feature
|
|
- Small ~"technical debt" issues
|
|
|
|
After adding the ~"Accepting merge requests" label, we try to estimate the
|
|
[weight](#issue-weight) of the issue. We use issue weight to let contributors
|
|
know how difficult the issue is. Additionally:
|
|
|
|
- We advertise [`Accepting merge requests` issues with weight < 5][up-for-grabs]
|
|
as suitable for people that have never contributed to GitLab before on the
|
|
[Up For Grabs campaign](http://up-for-grabs.net)
|
|
- We encourage people that have never contributed to any open source project to
|
|
look for [`Accepting merge requests` issues with a weight of 1][firt-timers]
|
|
|
|
If you've decided that you would like to work on an issue, please @-mention
|
|
the [appropriate product manager](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#who-to-talk-to-for-what)
|
|
as soon as possible. The product manager will then pull in appropriate GitLab team
|
|
members to further discuss scope, design, and technical considerations. This will
|
|
ensure that your contribution is aligned with the GitLab product and minimize
|
|
any rework and delay in getting it merged into master.
|
|
|
|
GitLab team members who apply the ~"Accepting merge requests" label to an issue
|
|
should update the issue description with a responsible product manager, inviting
|
|
any potential community contributor to @-mention per above.
|
|
|
|
[up-for-grabs]: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/issues?state=opened&label_name[]=Accepting+merge+requests&assignee_id=0&sort=weight
|
|
[firt-timers]: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/issues?state=opened&label_name[]=Accepting+merge+requests&assignee_id=0&sort=weight&weight=1
|
|
|
|
## Issue triaging
|
|
|
|
Our issue triage policies are [described in our handbook]. You are very welcome
|
|
to help the GitLab team triage issues. We also organize [issue bash events] once
|
|
every quarter.
|
|
|
|
The most important thing is making sure valid issues receive feedback from the
|
|
development team. Therefore the priority is mentioning developers that can help
|
|
on those issues. Please select someone with relevant experience from the
|
|
[GitLab team][team]. If there is nobody mentioned with that expertise look in
|
|
the commit history for the affected files to find someone.
|
|
|
|
We also use [GitLab Triage] to automate some triaging policies. This is
|
|
currently set up as a [scheduled pipeline] running on [quality/triage-ops]
|
|
project.
|
|
|
|
[described in our handbook]: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/issue-triage/
|
|
[issue bash events]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/17815
|
|
[GitLab Triage]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-triage
|
|
[scheduled pipeline]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/pipeline_schedules/10512/edit
|
|
[quality/triage-ops]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops
|
|
[team]: https://about.gitlab.com/team/
|
|
|
|
## Feature proposals
|
|
|
|
To create a feature proposal for CE, open an issue on the
|
|
[issue tracker of CE][ce-tracker].
|
|
|
|
For feature proposals for EE, open an issue on the
|
|
[issue tracker of EE][ee-tracker].
|
|
|
|
In order to help track the feature proposals, we have created a
|
|
[`feature`][fl] label. For the time being, users that are not members
|
|
of the project cannot add labels. You can instead ask one of the [core team]
|
|
members to add the label ~feature to the issue or add the following
|
|
code snippet right after your description in a new line: `~feature`.
|
|
|
|
Please keep feature proposals as small and simple as possible, complex ones
|
|
might be edited to make them small and simple.
|
|
|
|
Please submit Feature Proposals using the ['Feature Proposal' issue template](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/Feature%20proposal.md) provided on the issue tracker.
|
|
|
|
For changes in the interface, it is helpful to include a mockup. Issues that add to, or change, the interface should
|
|
be given the ~"UX" label. This will allow the UX team to provide input and guidance. You may
|
|
need to ask one of the [core team] members to add the label, if you do not have permissions to do it by yourself.
|
|
|
|
If you want to create something yourself, consider opening an issue first to
|
|
discuss whether it is interesting to include this in GitLab.
|
|
|
|
[fl]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?label_name=feature
|
|
|
|
## Issue tracker guidelines
|
|
|
|
**[Search the issue tracker][ce-tracker]** for similar entries before
|
|
submitting your own, there's a good chance somebody else had the same issue or
|
|
feature proposal. Show your support with an award emoji and/or join the
|
|
discussion.
|
|
|
|
Please submit bugs using the ['Bug' issue template](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/Bug.md) provided on the issue tracker.
|
|
The text in the parenthesis is there to help you with what to include. Omit it
|
|
when submitting the actual issue. You can copy-paste it and then edit as you
|
|
see fit.
|
|
|
|
## Issue weight
|
|
|
|
Issue weight allows us to get an idea of the amount of work required to solve
|
|
one or multiple issues. This makes it possible to schedule work more accurately.
|
|
|
|
You are encouraged to set the weight of any issue. Following the guidelines
|
|
below will make it easy to manage this, without unnecessary overhead.
|
|
|
|
1. Set weight for any issue at the earliest possible convenience
|
|
1. If you don't agree with a set weight, discuss with other developers until
|
|
consensus is reached about the weight
|
|
1. Issue weights are an abstract measurement of complexity of the issue. Do not
|
|
relate issue weight directly to time. This is called [anchoring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring)
|
|
and something you want to avoid.
|
|
1. Something that has a weight of 1 (or no weight) is really small and simple.
|
|
Something that is 9 is rewriting a large fundamental part of GitLab,
|
|
which might lead to many hard problems to solve. Changing some text in GitLab
|
|
is probably 1, adding a new Git Hook maybe 4 or 5, big features 7-9.
|
|
1. If something is very large, it should probably be split up in multiple
|
|
issues or chunks. You can simply not set the weight of a parent issue and set
|
|
weights to children issues.
|
|
|
|
## Regression issues
|
|
|
|
Every monthly release has a corresponding issue on the CE issue tracker to keep
|
|
track of functionality broken by that release and any fixes that need to be
|
|
included in a patch release (see [8.3 Regressions] as an example).
|
|
|
|
As outlined in the issue description, the intended workflow is to post one note
|
|
with a reference to an issue describing the regression, and then to update that
|
|
note with a reference to the merge request that fixes it as it becomes available.
|
|
|
|
If you're a contributor who doesn't have the required permissions to update
|
|
other users' notes, please post a new note with a reference to both the issue
|
|
and the merge request.
|
|
|
|
The release manager will [update the notes] in the regression issue as fixes are
|
|
addressed.
|
|
|
|
[8.3 Regressions]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4127
|
|
[update the notes]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release-tools/blob/master/doc/pro-tips.md#update-the-regression-issue
|
|
|
|
## Technical and UX debt
|
|
|
|
In order to track things that can be improved in GitLab's codebase,
|
|
we use the ~"technical debt" label in [GitLab's issue tracker][ce-tracker].
|
|
For missed user experience requirements, we use the ~"UX debt" label.
|
|
|
|
These labels should be added to issues that describe things that can be improved,
|
|
shortcuts that have been taken, features that need additional attention, and all
|
|
other things that have been left behind due to high velocity of development.
|
|
For example, code that needs refactoring should use the ~"technical debt" label,
|
|
something that didn't ship according to our Design System guidelines should
|
|
use the ~"UX debt" label.
|
|
|
|
Everyone can create an issue, though you may need to ask for adding a specific
|
|
label, if you do not have permissions to do it by yourself. Additional labels
|
|
can be combined with these labels, to make it easier to schedule
|
|
the improvements for a release.
|
|
|
|
Issues tagged with these labels have the same priority like issues
|
|
that describe a new feature to be introduced in GitLab, and should be scheduled
|
|
for a release by the appropriate person.
|
|
|
|
Make sure to mention the merge request that the ~"technical debt" issue or
|
|
~"UX debt" issue is associated with in the description of the issue.
|
|
|
|
## Technical debt in follow-up issues
|
|
|
|
It's common to discover technical debt during development of a new feature. In
|
|
the spirit of "minimum viable change", resolution is often deferred to a
|
|
follow-up issue. However, this cannot be used as an excuse to merge poor-quality
|
|
code that would otherwise not pass review, or to overlook trivial matters that
|
|
don't deserve the be scheduled independently, and would be best resolved in the
|
|
original merge request - or not tracked at all!
|
|
|
|
The overheads of scheduling, and rate of change in the GitLab codebase, mean
|
|
that the cost of a trivial technical debt issue can quickly exceed the value of
|
|
tracking it. This generally means we should resolve these in the original merge
|
|
request - or simply not create a follow-up issue at all.
|
|
|
|
For example, a typo in a comment that is being copied between files is worth
|
|
fixing in the same MR, but not worth creating a follow-up issue for. Renaming a
|
|
method that is used in many places to make its intent slightly clearer may be
|
|
worth fixing, but it should not happen in the same MR, and is generally not
|
|
worth the overhead of having an issue of its own. These issues would invariably
|
|
be labelled `~P4 ~S4` if we were to create them.
|
|
|
|
More severe technical debt can have implications for development velocity. If
|
|
it isn't addressed in a timely manner, the codebase becomes needlessly difficult
|
|
to change, new features become difficult to add, and regressions abound.
|
|
|
|
Discoveries of this kind of technical debt should be treated seriously, and
|
|
while resolution in a follow-up issue may be appropriate, maintainers should
|
|
generally obtain a scheduling commitment from the author of the original MR, or
|
|
the engineering or product manager for the relevant area. This may take the form
|
|
of appropriate Priority / Severity labels on the issue, or an explicit milestone
|
|
and assignee.
|
|
|
|
The maintainer must always agree before an outstanding discussion is resolved in
|
|
this manner, and will be the one to create the issue. The title and description
|
|
should be of the same quality as those created
|
|
[in the usual manner](#technical-and-ux-debt) - in particular, the issue title
|
|
**must not** begin with `Follow-up`! The creating maintainer should also expect
|
|
to be involved in some capacity when work begins on the follow-up issue.
|
|
|
|
## Stewardship
|
|
|
|
For issues related to the open source stewardship of GitLab,
|
|
there is the ~"stewardship" label.
|
|
|
|
This label is to be used for issues in which the stewardship of GitLab
|
|
is a topic of discussion. For instance if GitLab Inc. is planning to add
|
|
features from GitLab EE to GitLab CE, related issues would be labelled with
|
|
~"stewardship".
|
|
|
|
A recent example of this was the issue for
|
|
[bringing the time tracking API to GitLab CE][time-tracking-issue].
|
|
|
|
[time-tracking-issue]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25517#note_20019084
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
[Return to Contributing documentation](index.md)
|
|
|
|
[labels-page]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/labels
|
|
[ce-tracker]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues
|
|
[ee-tracker]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues
|