-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Revert to manual process for Type: Epic
#106
Comments
This was referenced Feb 15, 2023
Closed
Alright I think I'm going to leave well enough alone. I skimmed the Jira issues and I tried to get at the GitHub issues (not much luck). I've asked whether folks find |
asottile-sentry
pushed a commit
to getsentry/sentry
that referenced
this issue
Feb 17, 2023
asottile-sentry
pushed a commit
to getsentry/sentry
that referenced
this issue
Feb 17, 2023
Follow-up to #44832, for getsentry/team-ospo#106.
I feel like Unito might rear it's ugly head again but for now I'm calling this done and moving on. Three weeks. Blech! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Turns out this is a mess, these are OR'd not AND'd. 😭 😩 😖
This means that all of the flows I thought were separate are in fact in a race condition to "capture" GitHub issues as they're created with the
Type: Epic
label, regardless of the project.I need to bail. This was supposed to be a quick hack to relieve some friction, but it's been two weeks and despite working with Unito support this is not converging on a workable solution. We're gonna have to drop back to manual creation/linking. I've disabled all of the automations, I'll update docs soon and also try to clean everything up here asap.
To Do
Type: Epic
labelThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: