I reorged labels on Cabal's GitHub

[Edward Z. Yang]

For the PR, we can put in a checklist:

[ ] If you made a BC-breaking change, did you add an entry to the
    changelog?
[ ] If you added a new user-level feature, did you add an entry
    to the changelog?  Did you write docs for it?
[ ] If you added a new, public API function, did you add a
    @since annotation to it?
[ ] Did you Haddock all of your new functions?
[ ] Did you add a test? (If not why was it hard to write the test?
    Maybe open a bug for it.)

Any did I forget?

Excerpts from Oleg Grenrus's message of 2016-07-12 14:03:01 -0700:
> Great, it looks awesome.
> 
> Issue template is great idea as well. (for ones who aren’t familiar: https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates <https://github.com/blog/2111-issue-and-pull-request-templates>)
> (I’m +1 for having GitHub stuff under .github/ directory)
> 
> The issue template could ask for
> - Cabal/cabal-install/ghc versions
> - ask to run cabal-install with -v2 flag and add that to the issue?
> 
> with quick glance it doesn’t apply to many issues, but when it does, it would be helpful.
> 
> 
> - Oleg
> 
> > On 12 Jul 2016, at 23:48, Edward Z. Yang <ezyang at mit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > Excerpts from Oleg Grenrus's message of 2016-07-12 12:45:05 -0700:
> >> 
> >>> On 12 Jul 2016, at 18:42, Edward Z. Yang <ezyang at mit.edu> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Excerpts from Oleg Grenrus's message of 2016-07-12 04:03:43 -0700:
> >>>> Looks good indeed!
> >>>> 
> >>>> I have few questions:
> >>>> - what is purpose of `paging:*` labels, to help people see issues they are interested in? How it’s different from assignees (which can be multiple)?
> >>> 
> >>> Beyond what Mikhail stated:
> >>> 
> >>>   - Multiple people can be paged, only one assigned
> >> Yes you can. https://github.com/blog/2178-multiple-assignees-on-issues-and-pull-requests <https://github.com/blog/2178-multiple-assignees-on-issues-and-pull-requests>
> > 
> > Haha! Learned something today.
> > 
> >>>   - I can put more metadata in the tag name than assignable
> >>>     (to help people decide who to page)
> >> Ah, page as in ping. That meaning I always find weird (and don’t remember).
> >> 
> >>> summon (someone) over a public address system, so as to pass on a message
> >> 
> >> IMHO multiple assignment would work better as it actually sends notification (if one choose to receive such).
> >> 
> >> Yet, you’re right, deciding whom to page/assign is often non-obvious. Not sure if few-word description if any helpful. (e.g. whom to contact on hackage-security problems, I’m actually unsure whether it’s edsko or dcoutts, or on something else...).
> > 
> > OK, I am convinced we should drop it.
> > 
> > Let's do this:
> > 
> >    - To page someone, just write CC @blah in the message
> >    - We should add an issue template that requests you
> >      CC someone and explains who you might want to CC
> > 
> >>>> - why “bug” has “ezyang planning to delete this tag”. I’d prefer to have “type: bug” and other “type:*” labels as:  “type: discuss”, “type: enhancement”, “type: question”, and maybe more as e.g. stack has https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/labels <https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/labels>
> >>> 
> >>> OK, the tag served it's purpose! I planned to delete it because there
> >>> are lots of bugs in the issues tracker and no one has been methodically
> >>> tagging them bug or not, so it seemed that the tag was just not that
> >>> helpful.  Just look at Stack's issues list: https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues
> >>> who is tagging things as bugs!
> >> 
> >> If we go for type:* tags, I’ll help with triaging all issues with type:* tag.
> > 
> > OK, fine. I've reorged accordingly.
> > 
> >>> 
> >>> discuss/enhancement/question are useful and I support tags for them.
> >>> Presently we have "priority: enhancement" but we can rename that as
> >>> needed.
> >> 
> >> I’d like priorities to have a total-order. high > low is obvious, but what about enhancement and user-question? I’d change latter two into type:*, and maybe later introduce third priority level if we feel we need one.
> > 
> > Added.
> > 
> >>>> - how priority labels interact with milestones?
> >>> 
> >>> Agreed with Mikhail; priority within milestone.
> >>> 
> >>>> - Should we add “pr welcome” or “awaiting pr” for issues which are discussed, but nobody have interest or time implementing right away (will help new contributors especially when combined with `meta: easy`)
> >>> 
> >>> Sure! I wonder, however; for tickets that are tagged this way, I feel
> >>> the onus is on us to write a clear spec at the top of the bug for what
> >>> is desired (even better: link to a commit with a test!)  Will help
> >>> contributors a lot.
> >> 
> >> Yes, we should help as much as possible. I’d tag only “clear” issues, and add a comment that I can help with it, if there are some questions (or/and assign it to myself).
> >> 
> >> Also I forgot to ask about "attention: please-merge”. What’s it purpose, to tag PRs that author thinks are amerceable? IMHO the comment is enough, and also would work for external-contributors, who **cannot** tag issues/prs. (This is the reason why I got push-rights in the first place, I’m still quite uncomfortable pushing changes myself).
> > 
> > Dropped it.
> > 
> >> And what’s the idea behind “attention: regression”? How it’s different from a `type: bug` (its special case of a bug, but does it matter that much. Regressions could be critical or not, so priority tag, with type:bug would be enough?)
> > 
> > Regression is in here because we used to have a regression tag. I'll
> > reclassify them.
> > 
> >> E.g.
> >>    is:open label:"priority: high" label:"bug (ezyang is planning to delete this tag)" milestone:"Cabal 1.26"
> >> filter
> >> https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen%20label%3A%22priority%3A%20high%22%20label%3A%22bug%20(ezyang%20is%20planning%20to%20delete%20this%20tag)%22%20milestone%3A%22Cabal%201.26%22%20 <https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is:open%20label:%22priority:%20high%22%20label:%22bug%20(ezyang%20is%20planning%20to%20delete%20this%20tag)%22%20milestone:%22Cabal%201.26%22%20>
> >> 
> >> shows not that many.
> >> 
> >> OTOH there are 210 open issues (is:open is:issue no:milestone) without any milestone. Should we put them all into _|_ - milestone, and then promote to version milestones, when the discussion advanced enough we know when we want to release them (the soonest, or the latest?). As Cabal-1.26 165 open issues indicates, it’s more like “the soonest”, at least at this point.
> >> 
> >> cabal-install-1.24.0.1 has 12 open issues, should we create cabal-install-1.24.1 -milestone and move them there?
> > 
> > I think we should try to arrange a phone call behind all the Cabal
> > stakeholders and have a triage session to remilestone these bugs.
> > 
> > Edward
> >