146 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
146 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: reference, dev
|
|
stage: none
|
|
group: Development
|
|
info: To determine the technical writer assigned to the Stage/Group associated with this page, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/ux/technical-writing/#assignments
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Issues workflow
|
|
|
|
**Before you submit an issue, [search the issue tracker](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues)**
|
|
for similar entries. Someone else might have already had the same bug or feature proposal.
|
|
If you find an existing issue, show your support with an emoji reaction and add your notes to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
To submit a bug:
|
|
|
|
- Use the ['Bug' issue template](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/Bug.md).
|
|
The text in the comments (`<!-- ... -->`) should help you with which information to include.
|
|
- To report a suspected security vulnerability, follow the
|
|
[disclosure process on the GitLab.com website](https://about.gitlab.com/security/disclosure/).
|
|
|
|
WARNING:
|
|
Do **not** create publicly viewable issues for suspected security vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
## Issue triaging
|
|
|
|
Our issue triage policies are [described in our handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/issue-triage/).
|
|
You are very welcome to help the GitLab team triage issues.
|
|
We also organize [issue bash events](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/17815)
|
|
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](https://about.gitlab.com/company/team/).
|
|
If there is nobody mentioned with that expertise, look in the commit history for
|
|
the affected files to find someone.
|
|
|
|
We also have triage automation in place, described [in our handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/triage-operations/).
|
|
|
|
For information about which labels to apply to issues, see [Labels](../labels/index.md).
|
|
|
|
## Feature proposals
|
|
|
|
To create a feature proposal, open an issue on the
|
|
[issue tracker](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues).
|
|
|
|
In order to help track the feature proposals, we have created a
|
|
[`~"type::feature"`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues?label_name=type::feature) 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](https://about.gitlab.com/community/core-team/)
|
|
members to add the label `~"type::feature"` to the issue or add the following
|
|
code snippet right after your description in a new line: `~"type::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/-/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/Feature%20proposal%20-%20detailed.md) provided on the issue tracker.
|
|
|
|
For changes to the user interface (UI), follow our [design and UI guidelines](design.md),
|
|
and include a visual example (screenshot, wireframe, or mockup). Such issues should
|
|
be given the `~UX"` label for the Product Design team to provide input and guidance.
|
|
You may need to ask one of the [core team](https://about.gitlab.com/community/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.
|
|
|
|
## 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_(cognitive_bias))
|
|
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 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](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/4127) 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](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release-tools/blob/master/doc/pro-tips.md#update-the-regression-issue)
|
|
in the regression issue as fixes are addressed.
|
|
|
|
## 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 to 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 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 labeled `~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](../labels/index.md#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.
|