Skip to content
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.

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

[github] Do not add plan: Pro and plan: Premium labels on pro / premium issue templates #10183

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 24, 2023

Conversation

flaviendelangle
Copy link
Member

This is a follow up on a conversation we had with @oliviertassinari a few weeks ago.

The labels plan: Pro and plan: Premium should refer to the content of the issue, not to the nature of the user creating it.
For example, an issue about row pinning should have plan: Pro even though its user has a premium license.

This is how the label is being used by @oliviertassinari and I agree that it make more sense because technically any issue can impact a Pro / Premium user.

I updated the label descriptions (feel free to improve them) and I'm removing them from the pro / premium issue templates since those are also used to create issues related to features not in the maximum available plan of the user.

@mui-bot
Copy link

mui-bot commented Aug 31, 2023

Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-10183--material-ui-x.netlify.app/

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 188936b

Copy link
Member

@LukasTy LukasTy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The solution and explanation does make sense to me. 👍

@flaviendelangle flaviendelangle added the core Infrastructure work going on behind the scenes label Aug 31, 2023
@cherniavskii
Copy link
Member

I believe we need to reflect the user's plan in the issue somehow so that we can prioritize them accordingly.
Maybe keep the plan: ... labels and add scope: Pro and scope: Premium?

@flaviendelangle
Copy link
Member Author

For me this is achieved by support: commercial and support: priority which are describing the level of priority we should apply (none < support: commercial < support: priority)

@cherniavskii
Copy link
Member

@flaviendelangle Right, the only missing part is a differentiation between Pro and Premium, because Premium has higher priority:

@flaviendelangle
Copy link
Member Author

Indeed, according to the pricing page we need a "support: commercial pro" and "support: commercial premium".
@oliviertassinari @joserodolfofreitas do you confirm?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the PR: out-of-date The pull request has merge conflicts and can't be merged label Oct 12, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the PR: out-of-date The pull request has merge conflicts and can't be merged label Oct 16, 2023
Copy link
Member

@oliviertassinari oliviertassinari left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed, according to the pricing page we need a "support: commercial pro" and "support: commercial premium". do you confirm?

@flaviendelangle Ah yes, sorry for the delay. I'm adding @michelengelen to this discussion, as I think responsible for this scope.

The changes proposed here make sense to me, they are aligned with step 5. of #10488.

Note that today, the templates are broken, we have this in GitHub: https://www.notion.so/mui-org/GitHub-labels-af1ef18d3f534f1dbc086aac87b819e8?p=5af1eb7e28eb4c9ebbe20b77cbfc9307&pm=s but this in the issue template:

labels: ['status: waiting for maintainer', 'pro plan', 'support: commercial']

I see 3 possible ways forward with this PR:

  1. We fix the GitHub issue template by using the right labels
  2. We update the GitHub issue template by removing the dead labels
  3. We update the GitHub issue template and introduce these new labels (support: commercial pro" and "support: commercial premium") or (support: pro standard, support: premium standard)

I think they all make sense, they are all broken in their own ways. Maybe I would go with 2. just for the sake of being closer to the goal and creating an incentive to fix the workflow #whynot.

@michelengelen
Copy link
Member

michelengelen commented Oct 19, 2023

Indeed, according to the pricing page we need a "support: commercial pro" and "support: commercial premium". do you confirm?

@flaviendelangle Ah yes, sorry for the delay. I'm adding @michelengelen to this discussion, as I think responsible for this scope.

IMO this is a nice improvement, but I guess we can trim down the naming a bit:

(support: community <) support: pro < support: premium (< support: priority)

Adding support: community would help in filtering, searching and collecting metrics (TBD)


Additionally having a scoping label would be great, but this can probably only be added manually:

scope: community < scope: prop < scope: premium

The changes proposed here make sense to me, they are aligned with step 5. of #10488.

Note that today, the templates are broken, we have this in GitHub: https://www.notion.so/mui-org/GitHub-labels-af1ef18d3f534f1dbc086aac87b819e8?p=5af1eb7e28eb4c9ebbe20b77cbfc9307&pm=s but this in the issue template:

labels: ['status: waiting for maintainer', 'pro plan', 'support: commercial']

I see 3 possible ways forward with this PR:

  1. We fix the GitHub issue template by using the right labels
  2. We update the GitHub issue template by removing the dead labels
  3. We update the GitHub issue template and introduce these new labels (support: commercial pro" and "support: commercial premium") or (support: pro standard, support: premium standard)

I think they all make sense, they are all broken in their own ways. Maybe I would go with 2. just for the sake of being closer to the goal and creating an incentive to fix the workflow #whynot.

In favor of my proposal I would go with option 3, but take in the labels mentioned above. They are a bit more precise and reduce noise.

@michelengelen michelengelen changed the base branch from master to next November 6, 2023 14:23
@flaviendelangle flaviendelangle merged commit c0587c5 into mui:next Nov 24, 2023
18 checks passed
@flaviendelangle flaviendelangle deleted the label-templates branch November 24, 2023 11:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core Infrastructure work going on behind the scenes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants