forge/forge
11
8
Fork 8
Code Issues 91 Pull requests 1 Projects Wiki Activity Actions

New organization: packaging #456

New issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-11 02:07:45 +00:00 by gotmax23 · 10 comments
gotmax23 commented 2026-03-11 02:07:45 +00:00
Copy link

Hello Fedora Infra Team,

I would like to request the creation of a new organization and associated
teams in Fedora Forge.

  1. New Organization Details:

Desired Organization Name (Short Name): packager-tools

Full Name of Organization: Fedora Packager Tooling

Description of Organization's Purpose: This organization will host scripts, RPM macros, and other automation tooling for Fedora packaging.

Examples of projects that should live here:

  • fedrq
  • forge-srpm-macros
  • rpmautospec and rpmautospec-core (currently on Github)
  • goorphans
  • fedora-misc-package-utilities (currently on Pagure)
  • pyrpkg and fedpkg (also on Pagure)

I'm not sure how the teams structure should be set up. Each repository should have its own permissions structure. It should be possible for members of the packager FAS group to create repositories for packager tooling that are generally useful to Fedora packagers and don't fit under an established SIG in this organization. If Infra desires, a ticket-based process to create repositories can be used or maybe self-service can be offered to provenpackager members only.

Hello Fedora Infra Team, I would like to request the creation of a new organization and associated teams in Fedora Forge. 1. New Organization Details: Desired Organization Name (Short Name): packager-tools Full Name of Organization: Fedora Packager Tooling Description of Organization's Purpose: This organization will host scripts, RPM macros, and other automation tooling for Fedora packaging. Examples of projects that should live here: - fedrq - forge-srpm-macros - rpmautospec and rpmautospec-core (currently on Github) - [goorphans](https://codeberg.org/gotmax23/goorphans) - fedora-misc-package-utilities (currently on Pagure) - pyrpkg and fedpkg (also on Pagure) I'm not sure how the teams structure should be set up. Each repository should have its own permissions structure. It should be possible for members of the `packager` FAS group to create repositories for packager tooling that are _generally useful_ to Fedora packagers and don't fit under an established SIG in this organization. If Infra desires, a ticket-based process to create repositories can be used or maybe self-service can be offered to `provenpackager` members only.
👍 2
ryanlerch added this to the Sprint 16 project 2026-03-18 03:32:37 +00:00
ryanlerch modified the project from Sprint 16 to (deleted) 2026-03-23 09:14:00 +00:00
ryanlerch modified the project from (deleted) to Sprint 17 2026-03-23 10:30:09 +00:00
gotmax23 commented 2026-03-31 19:24:15 +00:00
Author
Copy link

@ryanlerch, what's the status of this?

@ryanlerch, what's the status of this?
ryanlerch commented 2026-04-02 02:57:14 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Held off on this one, since the ticket over on the packaging committee was talking about what to name their repo, and were talking about some packaging tools there:

https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527#comment-1008924

Held off on this one, since the ticket over on the packaging committee was talking about what to name their repo, and were talking about some packaging tools there: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527#comment-1008924
ryanlerch commented 2026-04-14 23:57:30 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Since this is going to get messy, i think having two seperate orgs here is the way to go (Packaging Tools and Packaging Committee)

For this ticket, @gotmax23 how about this setup:

  • Owners team (full admin access) given to members of a new group forge-packagingtools-owners whose group membership is inherited from provenpackagers

  • Members team (write access to tickets, read access to everything else, ability to create repos) is given to members of a new group forge-packagingtools-members whose group membership is inherted from packagers. If a user creates a repo, they are given admin access to that repo.

All other commit access to repos is done by manually adding users as collaborators on a per-repo basis.

Since this is going to get messy, i think having two seperate orgs here is the way to go (Packaging Tools and Packaging Committee) For this ticket, @gotmax23 how about this setup: * Owners team (full admin access) given to members of a new group `forge-packagingtools-owners` whose group membership is inherited from `provenpackagers` * Members team (write access to tickets, read access to everything else, ability to create repos) is given to members of a new group `forge-packagingtools-members` whose group membership is inherted from `packagers`. If a user creates a repo, they are given admin access to that repo. All other commit access to repos is done by manually adding users as collaborators on a per-repo basis.
gotmax23 commented 2026-04-15 00:15:47 +00:00
Author
Copy link

@ryanlerch and I discussed this on Matrix. I think the suggested setup is workable, there's just a question of whether forge-packagingtools-owners should contain all provenpackagers or just one or two people to serve as org admins.

I pointed out that it's an expansion of the role of provenpackagers that currently only applies to distgit permissions, but provenpackagers are already a trusted group, so perhaps it makes sense to give them access to packaging tools repos as well. Another option is to create a separate team in the packager-tools org that consists of provenpackagers so repo admins can choose to give all provenpackagers perms on a repo, but the team wouldn't automatically have global admins perms.

@ryanlerch and I discussed this on Matrix. I think the suggested setup is workable, there's just a question of whether forge-packagingtools-owners should contain all provenpackagers or just one or two people to serve as org admins. I pointed out that it's an expansion of the role of provenpackagers that currently only applies to distgit permissions, but provenpackagers are already a trusted group, so perhaps it makes sense to give them access to packaging tools repos as well. Another option is to create a separate team in the packager-tools org that consists of provenpackagers so repo admins can choose to give all provenpackagers perms on a repo, but the team wouldn't automatically have global admins perms.
ryanlerch commented 2026-04-15 00:17:31 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Okay, after a real-time chat with @gotmax23 in matrix, here is an ammended proposal:

  • Owners team (full admin access) given to members of a new group forge-packagingtools-owners with sponsors and members list being: @gotmax23 + ???

  • Provenpackager forge team: given to members of a new group forge-packagingtools-provenpackager with membership inhertied from the already existing provenpackager FAS group. Members of this team have write (or whatever) access to specific repos (a list that owners of the org or repos can update).

  • Packager forge team: given to members of a new group forge-packagingtools-packager with membership inhertied from the already existing packager FAS group. Members of this team will have no specific access to repos in the org. But have the ability to create a new repo in the organization.

Extra notes:

  • If a user creates a repo, they are given owner/admin access to that repo.
  • All other commit access to repos is done by manually adding users as collaborators on a per-repo basis, by either the owner/admin of the repo, or the owners of the org as a whole.
Okay, after a real-time chat with @gotmax23 in matrix, here is an ammended proposal: * Owners team (full admin access) given to members of a new group `forge-packagingtools-owners` with sponsors and members list being: @gotmax23 + ??? * `Provenpackager` forge team: given to members of a new group `forge-packagingtools-provenpackager` with membership inhertied from the already existing `provenpackager` FAS group. Members of this team have write (or whatever) access to specific repos (a list that owners of the org or repos can update). * `Packager` forge team: given to members of a new group `forge-packagingtools-packager` with membership inhertied from the already existing `packager` FAS group. Members of this team will have no specific access to repos in the org. But have the ability to create a new repo in the organization. Extra notes: * If a user creates a repo, they are given owner/admin access to that repo. * All other commit access to repos is done by manually adding users as collaborators on a per-repo basis, by either the owner/admin of the repo, or the owners of the org as a whole.
gotmax23 commented 2026-04-20 03:36:38 +00:00
Author
Copy link

Hi @ryanlerch, I put a final proposal to handle this and #457 in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527. The FPC discussed this in the last meeting, and we prefer one packaging org over the two organization approach as long as we can properly handle permissions -- which I think we can. If the plan I wrote up in the Pagure issue looks good to you, can we move forward with it?

Hi @ryanlerch, I put a final proposal to handle this and #457 in <https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527>. The FPC discussed this in the last meeting, and we prefer one `packaging` org over the two organization approach as long as we can properly handle permissions -- which I think we can. If the plan I wrote up in the Pagure issue looks good to you, can we move forward with it?
gotmax23 changed title from New organization: packager-tools to New organization: packaging 2026-04-20 03:41:19 +00:00
ryanlerch commented 2026-04-20 06:15:11 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

From @gotmax23 on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527#comment-1011641

Primary requirements

This setup will unblock the FPC migration and the packaging tools requests.

  • The forge-packaging-owners group should inherit from the packaging-committee FAS group and have admin permissions in the new packaging org.
  • The forge-packaging-committee group should inherit from the packaging-committee FAS group and map to a committee team in the Forge org. This team will have admin on forge.fp.o/packaging/guidelines once I migrate this repository. I figured it'd make sense to have a separate committee team in case we need to change the owners team in the future (see open question 1 below for why we might want to do this).
  • There should be a new forge-packaging-packager group that inherits from packager and maps to a packaging/packager team that has no special permissions in the org (readonly for everything) but can create repositories for packaging tooling.
  • Org description: "This organization will host the Packaging Committee and other issue trackers, RPM macros, and generally useful tooling for Fedora packaging." I tried to make this pretty explicit and well-scoped but feedback is welcome.

Open questions

  1. Will the admin team get automatically subscribed to all notifications for anything that happens in the org's repositories? I don't want to create a fire hose for all FPC members who would have admin perms in the org.
  2. Once this repo is migrated, how do we change the Antora docs pipeline to point to the new repo?

Secondary requirements

  • There should be a new forge-packaging-provenpackager group that inherits from provenpackager and maps to a packaging/provenpackager team in Forge. This team will have no special permissions in the org by default, but individual maintainers can choose to give this team ACLs on a per-repo basis if desired.
  • Is it possible to create a packager-sponsors Forge team that inherits its members from the sponsors list of the packager group (and not the members list like the proposed packager team would)? This will be needed for https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/ which we'll probably migrate to forge.fp.o/packaging/sponsors.
  • Other packagers should be able to request teams by filing an Infra ticket if needed. For example, https://pagure.io/fedpkg/ and https://pagure.io/rpkg/ are maintained by the same people, so I imagine they might want their own team under the packaging org.
From @gotmax23 on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527#comment-1011641 > ## Primary requirements > > This setup will unblock the FPC migration and the packaging tools requests. > > - The `forge-packaging-owners` group should inherit from the `packaging-committee` FAS group and have admin permissions in the new `packaging` org. > - The `forge-packaging-committee` group should inherit from the `packaging-committee` FAS group and map to a `committee` team in the Forge org. This team will have admin on forge.fp.o/packaging/guidelines once I migrate this repository. I figured it'd make sense to have a separate committee team in case we need to change the owners team in the future (see open question 1 below for why we might want to do this). > - There should be a new `forge-packaging-packager` group that inherits from `packager` and maps to a `packaging/packager` team that has no special permissions in the org (readonly for everything) but can create repositories for packaging tooling. > - Org description: "This organization will host the Packaging Committee and other issue trackers, RPM macros, and generally useful tooling for Fedora packaging." I tried to make this pretty explicit and well-scoped but feedback is welcome. > > ## Open questions > > 1. Will the admin team get automatically subscribed to all notifications for anything that happens in the org's repositories? I don't want to create a fire hose for all FPC members who would have admin perms in the org. > 2. Once this repo is migrated, how do we change the Antora docs pipeline to point to the new repo? > > ## Secondary requirements > > - There should be a new `forge-packaging-provenpackager` group that inherits from `provenpackager` and maps to a `packaging/provenpackager` team in Forge. This team will have no special permissions in the org by default, but individual maintainers can choose to give this team ACLs on a per-repo basis if desired. > - Is it possible to create a `packager-sponsors` Forge team that inherits its members from the sponsors list of the `packager` group (and not the members list like the proposed `packager` team would)? This will be needed for https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/ which we'll probably migrate to forge.fp.o/packaging/sponsors. > - Other packagers should be able to request teams by filing an Infra ticket if needed. For example, https://pagure.io/fedpkg/ and https://pagure.io/rpkg/ are maintained by the same people, so I imagine they might want their own team under the packaging org.
ryanlerch commented 2026-04-20 07:23:18 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

@ryanlerch wrote in #456 (comment):

From @gotmax23 on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527#comment-1011641

Primary requirements

This setup will unblock the FPC migration and the packaging tools requests.

  • The forge-packaging-owners group should inherit from the packaging-committee FAS group and have admin permissions in the new packaging org.

This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping.

  • The forge-packaging-committee group should inherit from the packaging-committee FAS group and map to a committee team in the Forge org. This team will have admin on forge.fp.o/packaging/guidelines once I migrate this repository. I figured it'd make sense to have a separate committee team in case we need to change the owners team in the future (see open question 1 below for why we might want to do this).

This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping.

I also set up the permissions for this one, so any repo that this team gets added to, they get Admin privs on -- org owners can change this in the team settings page.

  • There should be a new forge-packaging-packager group that inherits from packager and maps to a packaging/packager team that has no special permissions in the org (readonly for everything) but can create repositories for packaging tooling.

This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping.

I also set up the permissions for this one, so any repo that this team gets added to, they only get read access to, but they have the "create new repos" flag turned on.

  • Org description: "This organization will host the Packaging Committee and other issue trackers, RPM macros, and generally useful tooling for Fedora packaging." I tried to make this pretty explicit and well-scoped but feedback is welcome.

Added this to the org description. However org owners can tweak at any time.

Open questions

  1. Will the admin team get automatically subscribed to all notifications for anything that happens in the org's repositories? I don't want to create a fire hose for all FPC members who would have admin perms in the org.

Currently yes, but this default is turning out to be quite spammy for the way we have all our orgs set up in forge. So once i implement #529 later today, this should not be an issue anymore

  1. Once this repo is migrated, how do we change the Antora docs pipeline to point to the new repo?

You will need to change where the docs site build precess looks, e.g.

Secondary requirements

  • There should be a new forge-packaging-provenpackager group that inherits from provenpackager and maps to a packaging/provenpackager team in Forge. This team will have no special permissions in the org by default, but individual maintainers can choose to give this team ACLs on a per-repo basis if desired.

This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping.

I also set up the permissions for this one, so any repo that this team gets added to, they get write access.

  • Is it possible to create a packager-sponsors Forge team that inherits its members from the sponsors list of the packager group (and not the members list like the proposed packager team would)? This will be needed for https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/ which we'll probably migrate to forge.fp.o/packaging/sponsors.

This is not possible on the Forge side -- the OIDC login process that we use to populate the teams does not give us sponsors. However, this is likely be possible on the IPA side with some creative group inheritance. Will have to get further information on how the sponsors list is updated -- this is worth a seperate infra ticket i think, and i can explain my solution there if needs be.

  • Other packagers should be able to request teams by filing an Infra ticket if needed. For example, https://pagure.io/fedpkg/ and https://pagure.io/rpkg/ are maintained by the same people, so I imagine they might want their own team under the packaging org.

No worries -- just file a ticket here at forge/forge and we will get it done.

@ryanlerch wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/456#issuecomment-616778: > From @gotmax23 on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1527#comment-1011641 > > > ## [](#primary-requirements)Primary requirements > > This setup will unblock the FPC migration and the packaging tools requests. > > > > * The `forge-packaging-owners` group should inherit from the `packaging-committee` FAS group and have admin permissions in the new `packaging` org. This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping. * https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/packaging/teams/owners * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/forge-packaging-owners/ > > * The `forge-packaging-committee` group should inherit from the `packaging-committee` FAS group and map to a `committee` team in the Forge org. This team will have admin on forge.fp.o/packaging/guidelines once I migrate this repository. I figured it'd make sense to have a separate committee team in case we need to change the owners team in the future (see open question 1 below for why we might want to do this). This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping. * https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/packaging/teams/committee * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/forge-packaging-committee/ I also set up the permissions for this one, so any repo that this team gets added to, they get Admin privs on -- org owners can change this in the team settings page. > > * There should be a new `forge-packaging-packager` group that inherits from `packager` and maps to a `packaging/packager` team that has no special permissions in the org (readonly for everything) but can create repositories for packaging tooling. This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping. * https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/packaging/teams/packager * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/forge-packaging-packager/ I also set up the permissions for this one, so any repo that this team gets added to, they only get read access to, but they have the "create new repos" flag turned on. > > * Org description: "This organization will host the Packaging Committee and other issue trackers, RPM macros, and generally useful tooling for Fedora packaging." I tried to make this pretty explicit and well-scoped but feedback is welcome. Added this to the org description. However org owners can tweak at any time. > > > > ## [](#open-questions)Open questions > > > > 1. Will the admin team get automatically subscribed to all notifications for anything that happens in the org's repositories? I don't want to create a fire hose for all FPC members who would have admin perms in the org. Currently yes, but this default is turning out to be quite spammy for the way we have all our orgs set up in forge. So once i implement https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/529 later today, this should not be an issue anymore > > 2. Once this repo is migrated, how do we change the Antora docs pipeline to point to the new repo? You will need to change where the docs site build precess looks, e.g. * Staging -- https://gitlab.com/fedora/docs/docs-website/docs-fp-o/-/blob/stg/site.yml?ref_type=heads#L128 * Prod -- https://gitlab.com/fedora/docs/docs-website/docs-fp-o/-/blob/prod/site.yml?ref_type=heads#L128 > > > > ## [](#secondary-requirements)Secondary requirements > > > > * There should be a new `forge-packaging-provenpackager` group that inherits from `provenpackager` and maps to a `packaging/provenpackager` team in Forge. This team will have no special permissions in the org by default, but individual maintainers can choose to give this team ACLs on a per-repo basis if desired. This group and team have now been created, and are linked via mapping. * https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/packaging/teams/provenpackager * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/forge-packaging-provenpackager/ I also set up the permissions for this one, so any repo that this team gets added to, they get write access. > > * Is it possible to create a `packager-sponsors` Forge team that inherits its members from the sponsors list of the `packager` group (and not the members list like the proposed `packager` team would)? This will be needed for https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/ which we'll probably migrate to forge.fp.o/packaging/sponsors. This is not possible on the Forge side -- the OIDC login process that we use to populate the teams does not give us sponsors. However, this is likely be possible on the IPA side with some creative group inheritance. Will have to get further information on how the sponsors list is updated -- this is worth a seperate infra ticket i think, and i can explain my solution there if needs be. > > * Other packagers should be able to request teams by filing an Infra ticket if needed. For example, https://pagure.io/fedpkg/ and https://pagure.io/rpkg/ are maintained by the same people, so I imagine they might want their own team under the packaging org. No worries -- just file a ticket here at forge/forge and we will get it done.
gotmax23 commented 2026-04-20 14:27:15 +00:00
Author
Copy link

Thanks for creating the org and answering all my questions. It looks like there is an issue with two of the groups/teams, though. I have been added to

which have a fedora- prefix, not a forge- prefix like is configured in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/src/commit/cea0a27b737837df664b83cdcbce0b52b2293bc0/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2#L564-L565. The Packager and Committee teams are currently empty, presumably because of the mismatched group names. Can either the group names in IPA or the Forgejo configuration be fixed?

Thanks for creating the org and answering all my questions. It looks like there is an issue with two of the groups/teams, though. I have been added to - https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-packaging-packager/ - https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-packaging-committee/ which have a `fedora-` prefix, not a `forge-` prefix like is configured in <https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/src/commit/cea0a27b737837df664b83cdcbce0b52b2293bc0/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2#L564-L565>. The Packager and Committee teams are currently empty, presumably because of the mismatched group names. Can either the group names in IPA or the Forgejo configuration be fixed?
gotmax23 reopened this issue 2026-04-20 14:27:15 +00:00
ryanlerch commented 2026-04-21 03:42:54 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

@gotmax23 wrote in #456 (comment):

Thanks for creating the org and answering all my questions. It looks like there is an issue with two of the groups/teams, though. I have been added to

which have a fedora- prefix, not a forge- prefix like is configured in

Lines 564 to 565 in infra/ansible@cea0a27
"forge-packaging-committee":{"packaging":["Committee"]},
"forge-packaging-packager":{"packaging":["Packager"]},

. The Packager and Committee teams are currently empty, presumably because of the mismatched group names. Can either the group names in IPA or the Forgejo configuration be fixed?

Sorry about this, that was a error on my part.

I have created the proper groups now:

and have changed the ones i made in error to be empty:

We typically do not delete groups, but since these were made in error, and never actaully used, i will check with @kevin to see if they are ok to delete in this case.

@gotmax23 wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/456#issuecomment-616929: > Thanks for creating the org and answering all my questions. It looks like there is an issue with two of the groups/teams, though. I have been added to > > * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-packaging-packager/ > * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-packaging-committee/ > > which have a `fedora-` prefix, not a `forge-` prefix like is configured in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/src/commit/cea0a27b737837df664b83cdcbce0b52b2293bc0/roles/openshift-apps/forgejo/templates/values.yaml.j2#L564-L565. The Packager and Committee teams are currently empty, presumably because of the mismatched group names. Can either the group names in IPA or the Forgejo configuration be fixed? Sorry about this, that was a error on my part. I have created the proper groups now: * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/forge-packaging-packager/ * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/forge-packaging-committee/ and have changed the ones i made in error to be empty: * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-packaging-packager/ * https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-packaging-committee/ We typically do not delete groups, but since these were made in error, and never actaully used, i will check with @kevin to see if they are ok to delete in this case.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
main
test
docs
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels   
ai-review-please
label for requesting AI code review

  
Org/Team Modification

   
Private Issues
Label for tracking development on Private Issues in Forgejo

  
Runner Request
  
Backlog Status
Needs Review
 Work items that have been created or updated but need review, refinement, or approval before they can be considered ready for sprint planning.

  
Backlog Status
Ready
 Work items that have been reviewed, refined, and are ready to be committed to a sprint. These items have clear requirements and can be worked on immediately when capacity is available.

  
chore
Work that needs to be done but doesn't add new functionality or fix bugs. Maintenance tasks that keep the system running smoothly and the codebase clean.

  
documentation
Work focused on creating, updating, or improving documentation for users, developers, or system administrators.

  
points
01
 A task that is simple, small, and has very little uncertainty. It should be easy enough for any team member to pick up and complete quickly, without a lot of discussion or research.

  
points
02
 This is a task that is slightly more complex or larger than a "1." It might involve two or three simple steps, but the outcome is still very clear and there's little uncertainty.

  
points
03
 Medium-sized task with some noticeable complexity. It might require a bit more thought or collaboration. The steps are well-defined, but it's not a trivial change.

  
points
05
 A significant piece of work. It has more complexity and a higher degree of uncertainty than smaller tasks. It might require some research, a design discussion, or collaboration across multiple teams.

  
points
08
 Complex task with a lot of uncertainty. It's often the largest size that a team will consider for a single sprint. It likely requires a detailed breakdown and multiple team members to complete.

  
points
13
 Any task that feels like it's a "13" or more is considered an Epic. These are too large and uncertain to be worked on in a single sprint and should be broken down.

  
Priority
High
 This is for work that is critical and needs to be addressed in the next sprint. It's often for urgent bugs, important features, or a major piece of technical debt that is blocking other work.

  
Priority
Low
 This is for work that is good to do but not urgent. It's a candidate for being worked on when there's extra time or when it rises in importance. It can stay in the backlog for a longer period.

  
Priority
Medium
 This is for important work that should be done soon, but isn't as urgent as a high-priority item. It will likely be considered for the next 1-2 sprints.

  
Sprint Status
Blocked
 Work items that cannot progress due to external dependencies, blockers, or issues that need resolution.

  
Sprint Status
Done
 Work items that have been completed, reviewed, and integrated. No further work is needed within the current sprint.

  
Sprint Status
In Progress
 Work items currently being worked on by a team member. Active development, research, or implementation is happening.

  
Sprint Status
Review
 Work items that are complete but need review, testing, or approval before being marked as done.

  
Sprint Status
To Do
 Work items that are committed to the sprint but haven't been started yet. These items are ready to be picked up by team members.

  
Technical Debt
Work that addresses shortcuts, workarounds, or suboptimal implementations that were done previously to meet deadlines. These items improve code quality, maintainability, or performance without adding new features.

  
Work Item
Bug
 Issues where the system is not working as intended or designed. Bugs represent deviations from expected behavior.

  
Work Item
Epic
 Large initiatives that are broken down into multiple smaller work items (user stories, tasks, bugs). Epics represent significant features or projects that span multiple sprints.

  
Work Item
Spike
 Time-boxed research, investigation, or proof-of-concept work to reduce uncertainty or explore solutions. Spikes help inform future development decisions.

  
Work Item
Task
 Used to break down larger user stories into smaller, manageable implementation pieces. They focus on the specific technical steps needed to deliver the user story's value.

  
Work Item
User Story
 User-facing features or functionality that can be framed from a user perspective, describing what someone wants to accomplish and why.

No labels
ai-review-please
Org/Team Modification
Private Issues
Runner Request
Backlog Status
Needs Review
Backlog Status
Ready
chore
documentation
points
01
points
02
points
03
points
05
points
08
points
13
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Sprint Status
Blocked
Sprint Status
Done
Sprint Status
In Progress
Sprint Status
Review
Sprint Status
To Do
Technical Debt
Work Item
Bug
Work Item
Epic
Work Item
Spike
Work Item
Task
Work Item
User Story
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Sprint 18
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
ryanlerch
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
forge/forge#456
No description provided.