Use GitHub native "Issue Type" for Task/Bug/Feature instead of labels

[quicksketch]

Right now we use labels for type - bug report, type - task, and type - feature request. GitHub introduced "Issue type" as a separate field in 2025. We should convert our existing labels to use these standard fields, as it may help conform with GitHub tooling and other software projects.

Unfortunately, we have several labels that do not have equivalents, i.e. type - documentation and type - question. But I think that is fine, we can just leave those types as labels and convert the matching ones to the new field.

Tasks to complete this:

• Update all existing issues from using labels to using the issue type.
• Update GitHub issue templates to use the new issue type field.
• Update links throughout our documentation and processes to use the link format, i.e. https://github.com/backdrop/backdrop-issues/issues?q=type%3AFeature instead of https://github.com/backdrop/backdrop-issues/issues?q=label%3A%22type%20-%20feature%20request%22

[NormPlum]

I think the type - documentation label can become Type: Task. And I believe GitHub tries to separate questions/discussions into the Discussions section: https://docs.github.com/en/discussions Or perhaps we just use the Forum for that?

[indigoxela]

Having both (label and dedicated type) is confusing. Not sure what the benefit of the independent type field may be, but switching might add more clarity.

It just takes some volunteer(s) to go through all our open issues. At least, the more active ones.

@NormPlum losing type "type - documentation" would be a pity - it's about doc blocks, from which our official docs are built. It's nice to have that as a label. Maybe we keep that one?

[quicksketch]

It just takes some volunteer(s) to go through all our open issues. At least, the more active ones.

Yeah, quite relevant considering our work on #3798, GitHub as of right now does not have an option to apply a change to all pages of a listing. With 25 items per page and 1457 current feature requests, we'd need to apply the batch operation 59 times for the current feature list (plus 100 pages of bug reports and 73 pages of tasks).

Of course we could probably fix this with an API script, which seems a bit risky but it probably viable if done carefully.

[NormPlum]

losing type "type - documentation" would be a pity

I think we should still keep the label, but rename it to just 'documentation' (like we have a 'design' label), and use 'Type: Task' as well for those issues.

[yorkshire-pudding]

I've started using these new types but this conversation is welcome and I do think it would make sense. We do need to keep documentation but I wonder would they also fall into another category:

• typo, incorrect text -> bug
• improving either by extension or clarification -> feature (though this might not be desirable if we limit these to minor releases)
• update to reflect change in core or to point to Backdrop documentation -> task

And I believe GitHub tries to separate questions/discussions into the Discussions section: https://docs.github.com/en/discussions Or perhaps we just use the Forum for that?

I think the Forum is for that. Starting "Discussions" here would create another place. Also, forum is open to search engines but I don't know if discussions are. We know Wikis aren't unless (a) project has a lot of stars (b) the Wiki is locked to collaborators only. Issues seem to be a bit hit and miss and I think there is a bit of a delay before they are indexed.

Of course we could probably fix this with an API script, which seems a bit risky but it probably viable if done carefully.

We could test an API script on a contrib project.

[quicksketch]

I discovered today that we can add our own issue types! They're at the organization level rather than per-repository, which is not what I was expecting:

https://github.com/organizations/backdrop/settings/issue-types

So in addition to task/bug/feature, I think we should convert our other "issue type" tags:

• Documentation
• Question
• Meta (maybe we should rename this to "Epic"? I see that a lot more these days.)

Separately, I think this is exciting because we can also standardize the issue types available within the backdrop-contrib organization, rather than having every issue queue define "bug" / "defect" / "bugfix" differently.

[yorkshire-pudding]

That's great news.

• Meta (maybe we should rename this to "Epic"? I see that a lot more these days.)

Yes - I think epic is more meaningful than meta.

[bugfolder]

I was a little puzzled by "epic," because the usage I was most familiar with was "a huge adventure," as in "We lost our luggage and then the cabdriver didn't understand our language and dropped us off in the middle of nowhere at midnight with lions roaring all around. It was epic." But then I let the AI word-machine tell me:

In an Agile context on GitHub, an epic is a large body of work or a high-level initiative that serves as a container for multiple, smaller, related issues (often called user stories or tasks).

So I guess that works. And having the same set of types available to contrib sounds like a very good thing.

[quicksketch]

ChatGPT also pointed out that "Epic" is out-of-box terminology in some other platforms, including GitLab and Jira. Asana uses "Portfolio" but specifically documents it as "mapping to epics". I don't think "Meta" is a term used by any project management software.

Perhaps it's my own history, but ChatGPT specifically said, "'Meta' is most commonly used in Open-Source projects like Drupal, Backdrop, Python, and Debian."

[indigoxela]

I discovered today that we can add our own issue types! They're at the organization level rather than per-repository, which is not what I was expecting:

That's great, so we can add "Documentation".

We discourage "Question" for quite a while now, as they're usually support topics better covered by our forum.

Meta (maybe we should rename this to "Epic"? I see that a lot more these days.)

"Epic" 😆 sounds a bit over the top for me, but if people agree... 🤷

Standardizing labels for contrib has some value. Currently the labels are different in almost every repo, which may be confusing for people reporting in several projects. It currently even depends on when a repo has been created. 😉

[yorkshire-pudding]

Meta (maybe we should rename this to "Epic"? I see that a lot more these days.)

"Epic" 😆 sounds a bit over the top for me, but if people agree... 🤷

@indigoxela - do you have any other ideas for this type? I wasn't 100% sold on "Epic" as it has a particular meaning in Agile software development, which although the meaning here is similar, is not quite the same. However, I do think it is a better term than "Meta" so wondering if there any more suitable terms?

[NormPlum]

Perhaps it'd be better to use 'Projects' instead of meta/epic issues... https://github.com/backdrop/backdrop-issues/projects