Labelling v2.0 changes, third series

[trurlurl]

3rd series series following #762 and #764.

I am through with the complete part 1 of the documentation. I only added labels for changes found in the document that are linked to a PR (i.e., that have a comment mentioning a PR).

• That means, uncommented changes have not been treated. There are many of them.
• For the pending PRs, we have to take care adding labels when merging and documenting them.

I was unsure what to do with changes preceding V2.0. Not in a consistent manner, I sometimes added +v1.3.1 or +v1.2.2 labels mainly. But was hesitating whether it makes sense to have some sparse +v1.3.1 labels at all because there haven't been many of them until now. The version is often just my best guess (v1.3.1, v1.3.0, v1.2.3, …) and should be reviewed.

I put "needs documentation update" on this PR because if you want me to remove or change some of the labels then this needs to be duplicated in the documentation.

[Aurige]

Hello @trurlurl
Sorry for the slow answer (I was away and then sick ... still sick, I hope that I'll recover for Wednesday's meeting)
Our "official" CEN tags are 1.2.2 (New Modes), 1.3.1 (EPIAP) and the incoming 2.0
I'm not sure that it really helps users to be more accurate then this. As 1.2.2 is kind of expected to have the proper +v1.2.2 labels, we should be able to stick on +v1.3.1 and v2.0 whenever it is a headache to be more accurate.
... and thanks again for all this work !

[Aurige]

Also, no need to track very old ones (like +v1.1) ... of course don't remove the one you added, but that's what people already have, and they probably don't care (and already know) that it was new at some point ;-)

[Aurige]

I didn't see any obvious mistake ... and that's all useful anyway