[Doc] Add issue workflow guidelines

[zeshengzong]

What this PR does / why we need it?

This guideline improves onboarding for new contributors and reduces ambiguity for maintainers when triaging issues.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

Check content locally and maintainer can review via github preview, also need check the result of readthedocs CI workflow.

• vLLM version: v0.18.0
• vLLM main: vllm-project/vllm@35141a7

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces comprehensive issue workflow guidelines for the vLLM Ascend project. The primary goal is to standardize how issues are managed from creation to closure, fostering clearer communication and more efficient collaboration among contributors and maintainers. By defining specific label categories and a structured workflow, the changes aim to streamline the issue resolution process and improve overall project maintainability.

Highlights

• New Documentation Added: A new document, 'Issue Workflow Guidelines', has been added to the docs/source/community directory. This document outlines the standard lifecycle for issues within the vLLM Ascend project.
• Standardized Label Usage: The guidelines introduce and define various label categories for issues, including Status, Issue Type, Module, Priority, and Community labels, to ensure consistent categorization.
• Defined Issue Workflow: A three-phase workflow (First Response, Triage & Analysis, Closure) is detailed, complete with a Mermaid flowchart, to guide maintainers and contributors through the issue resolution process.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces new documentation outlining the issue workflow guidelines for the vLLM Ascend project, including label categories and a three-phase workflow. The review comments highlight several inconsistencies and areas for improvement within this new document. Specifically, the invalid and wontfix status labels, as well as the critical priority label, are mentioned in the workflow description but are missing from their respective definition tables. Additionally, there's a contradiction in how 'invalid' issues are handled between the mermaid diagram and the textual description, which should be aligned for clarity.

[gemini-code-assist]

The workflow description later on (lines 130-131) mentions invalid and wontfix labels, but they are not defined in this Status Labels table. This will cause confusion. Please add them to the table for clarity and consistency.

Suggested change

	| `triage review` | Newly filed or unseen issue awaiting initial assessment by a maintainer |
	| `triaged` | Assessment complete; type, priority, and module have been determined |
	| `pending` | Blocked on an external dependency or awaiting a response before work can proceed |
	| `resolved` | Issue has been closed — either via a merged PR, or through non-code resolution (e.g., answered question, configuration guidance) |
	| `stale` | No activity for an extended period; parties have been notified and the issue will be auto-closed if there is no response |
	| `duplicated` | A duplicate of an existing open issue or merged PR |
	| `triage review` | Newly filed or unseen issue awaiting initial assessment by a maintainer |
	| `triaged` | Assessment complete; type, priority, and module have been determined |
	| `pending` | Blocked on an external dependency or awaiting a response before work can proceed |
	| `resolved` | Issue has been closed — either via a merged PR, or through non-code resolution (e.g., answered question, configuration guidance) |
	| `stale` | No activity for an extended period; parties have been notified and the issue will be auto-closed if there is no response |
	| `duplicated` | A duplicate of an existing open issue or merged PR |
	| `invalid` | The issue report is invalid, unclear, or not reproducible |
	| `wontfix` | The issue will not be addressed; includes an explanation |

[zeshengzong]

Already removed invalid and wontfix labels from description

[gemini-code-assist]

There's an inconsistency in the priority labels. The table in this section lists high, medium, and low. However, the workflow description in Phase 2 (line 127) and the mermaid diagram (line 93) also mention a critical priority. To ensure consistency, please add the critical label to this table.

Suggested change

	| `high` | High priority; should be resolved in the current or next cycle |
	| `medium` | Normal priority; handled in the regular development flow |
	| `low` | Low priority; edge case or minor issue that can be deferred |
	| `critical` | Must be addressed immediately |
	| `high` | High priority; should be resolved in the current or next cycle |
	| `medium` | Normal priority; handled in the regular development flow |
	| `low` | Low priority; edge case or minor issue that can be deferred |

[zeshengzong]

Following current priority levels, removed critical label, keep it as current status: high, medium, low

[gemini-code-assist]

There is a contradiction in how invalid issues are handled. This diagram says to apply the resolved label, but the text description in Phase 2 (line 130) correctly says to apply an invalid label. Using invalid is more semantically correct. Please update the diagram to be consistent with the text.

Suggested change

	C2 -- Invalid --> C4["Apply resolved\nExplain → Close"]
	C2 -- Invalid --> C4["Apply invalid\nExplain → Close"]

[zeshengzong]

The invalid label already removed, currently only need resolved label to mark issue handled by a maintainer/contributor.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM Ascend project. The following points will speed up your PR merge:‌‌

• A PR should do only one thing, smaller PRs enable faster reviews.
• Every PR should include unit tests and end-to-end tests ‌to ensure it works and is not broken by other future PRs.
• Write the commit message by fulfilling the PR description to help reviewer and future developers understand.

If CI fails, you can run linting and testing checks locally according Contributing and Testing.

[zeshengzong]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

Suggested PR Title:\n\nmarkdown\n[Doc][Misc] Add Issue Workflow Guidelines\n\n\nSuggested PR Summary:\n\nmarkdown\n### What this PR does / why we need it?\nThis PR introduces `issue-workflow-guidelines.md` to define the standard lifecycle for issues in the vLLM Ascend project, including label categories and a three-phase triage process. A review comment identifies a high-severity inconsistency between the workflow diagram and the descriptive text regarding the closure process for invalid reports and the timing of the `resolved` label application.\n\n### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?\nNo.\n\n### How was this patch tested?\nN/A (Documentation update)\n

[gemini-code-assist]

There is an inconsistency in the documented process for handling invalid reports. The workflow diagram on line 69 (C -- Invalid --> C4[Add: resolved → Close]) suggests an immediate closure after applying the resolved label. However, this line states to 'wait for a response from the issue creator' before closing. This could lead to confusion. Please align the diagram and the text to describe a single, clear process.

Additionally, the description for the resolved label on line 16 says it's for an issue that 'has been closed', but this line suggests applying it before closing. This is also contradictory. Please ensure the timing of applying the label and closing the issue is consistent throughout the document.

[zeshengzong]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new documentation file, issue-workflow-guidelines.md, which outlines the standard lifecycle for issues in the vLLM Ascend project, including label definitions and a three-phase workflow. The review feedback highlights a logic error in the Mermaid diagram for the closure phase and a procedural contradiction in handling invalid reports.

Suggested PR Title:

[Doc][Feature] Add Issue Workflow Guidelines

Suggested PR Summary:

### What this PR does / why we need it?
This PR adds the `Issue Workflow Guidelines` to define the standard lifecycle for issues, ensuring consistent label usage and communication. It covers status, type, priority, and contribution labels, and details the workflow from initial response to closure. Feedback indicates the need to fix a logic error in the Phase 3 Mermaid diagram and resolve a contradiction in the invalid report handling process.

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
Documentation-only updates are not considered user-facing changes.

### How was this patch tested?
No code changes; documentation verified for clarity and structure.

[gemini-code-assist]

The Mermaid diagram for 'Phase 3 — Closure' on line 80 incorrectly shows a sequential flow from a resolved issue to a stale issue. A resolved and closed issue should not become stale. An inactive issue becomes stale.

The flow should show two separate outcomes from the 'Track & Implement' state: one for 'Resolved' and another for 'Long inactive'.

Please correct the diagram. The definition for this part of the subgraph should be changed from:

D[Track & Implement] -- Resolved --> D2[Apply: resolved → Close] -- Long inactive --> D3[Apply: stale → Auto-close]

Loading

to something like:

D[Track & Implement]
D -- Resolved --> D2[Apply: resolved → Close]
D -- Long inactive --> D3[Apply: stale → Auto-close]

Loading