Skip to content

Improve label versions triaging#1613

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
picnixz wants to merge 4 commits into
base:main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Improve label versions triaging #1613

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
10c2b84
improve label versions triaging
picnixz Jul 20, 2025
03c1d37
Update triage/labels.rst
picnixz Jul 20, 2025
d8c7a7b
address reviews
picnixz Sep 11, 2025
746e517
Update triage/labels.rst
picnixz Dec 7, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
36 changes: 35 additions & 1 deletion triage/labels.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ These labels are used to specify the type of issue:
core dump.
* :gh-label:`type-feature`: for feature requests or enhancements.
Feature requests do not need :ref:`version labels <Version labels>`;
it is implicit that features are added to the ``main`` branch only.
it is implicit that features are added to the ``main`` branch only,
except for some :ref:`exceptional cases <exceptional-version-labels>`.
The `Ideas Discourse category`_ can be used to discuss enhancements
before filing an issue.
* :gh-label:`type-security`: for security issues.
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -97,9 +98,42 @@ These labels are used to indicate which versions of Python are affected.
The available version labels (with the form :samp:`3.{N}`) are updated
whenever new feature releases are created or retired.

Recommendations
Copy link
Member

@devdanzindevdanzinSep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe add a recommendation about whether to keep type-bug in type-security issues (are they truly redundant?)?

Copy link
Member

@StanFromIrelandStanFromIrelandSep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that the place for that is beside the type-security doc?

---------------

- For security issues, add the :gh-label:`type-security` label and
the affected version labels. This makes the issue stand out.

- For non-security issues affecting *all* bugfix branches, only add
the :gh-label:`type-bug` label as knowing which versions are affected
does not give more information.

- Labels for end-of-life versions should be removed when possible but there is
no need to explicitly go through old issues to remove such labels.

- Otherwise, add the corresponding version labels and remember to
update them when the latest feature version is released.

See also :ref:`the branch status page <branchstatus>`
for a list of active branches.

.. _exceptional-version-labels:

Exceptional version labels for features
---------------------------------------

While features should not have a version label, there are a few exceptional
cases subject to the release manager approval:

- If we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0` and
if a feature was implemented in its *alpha* period but requires a
non-trivial extension (hence a new *feature* issue), this new
feature issue is given the :samp:`3.{N}` label as the latest
version under development would now be :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`.

To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is
approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label can also be applied.
Comment on lines +128 to +135
Copy link
MemberAuthor

@picnixzpicnixzDec 7, 2025•
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- If we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0` and
if a feature was implemented in its *alpha* period but requires a
non-trivial extension (hence a new *feature* issue), this new
feature issue is given the :samp:`3.{N}` label as the latest
version under development would now be :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`.
To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is
approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label can also be applied.
- Assume that we are currently in the *beta* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0`,
that is, the latest version under development is :samp:`3.{N+1}.0a1`.
If a feature implemented in the *alpha* period of :samp:`3.{N}.0`
requires a non-trivial extension, a *new* feature issue must be
created and be given the :samp:`3.{N}` label.
To indicate that the labelling is correct and the extension is
approved, the :gh-label:`triaged` label can also be applied.

Copy link
MemberAuthor

@picnixzpicnixzDec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@hugovk Something like this?

Copy link
MemberAuthor

@picnixzpicnixzDec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: another acceptable 3.N label is when we implement a PEP. It's good to have both feature & 3.N labels at the same time because the PEP is meant to be implemented in that version.

Copy link
Member

@hugovkhugovkDec 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a bit confused :)

Filling in numbers to make this concrete:

Assume that we are currently in the beta period of 3.14.0,
that is, the latest version under development is 3.15.0a1.
If a feature implemented in the alpha period of 3.14.0
requires a non-trivial extension, a new feature issue must be
created and be given the 3.14 label.

The 3.14 beta was May to July 2025.

3.15 was still in pre-alpha, versioned 3.15.0a0 (from May to October 2025).

Did you mean 3.{N+1}.0a0 rather than 3.{N+1}.0a1?

In any case, I'm not sure we really need to document such exceptional things.

(Nit: "there are a few exceptional cases" but then we list just one case.)

Copy link
MemberAuthor

@picnixzpicnixzDec 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I meant 3.15.0.a0 sorry.

I think we need to document at least this case because we explicitly state that betas are feature frozen. As for the list, I thought I would have more but I do not think there will be more so I can rephrase this!



.. _Keywords:
.. _Other:
Expand Down
Loading