One thing that I'm often down on GitHub about is its inferior issue tracking system. I think that for many, if not the majority of smaller open source projects, that have minimal product management, it's sufficient. But for larger projects that I work on, namely Astropy, its limitations really become apparent.
In particular, what I miss from better issue trackers like Trac's or Bitbucket's is a greater wealth of metadata that can be attached to an issue (let's not even get into workflows). GitHub supports a (single) assignee to an issue, a milestone, and any number of "labels". Labels are fairly freeform and can act as a stand-in for other metadata (affected versions, affected components, etc.) with judicious use, and this is exacly what I really need for Astropy. There may not be a specific "Affected Version" metadata field, but I can at least create labels like "affects-0.2.x", meaning that a particular bug affects the lastest 0.2.x release and should be included in the next bugfix release. It's not pretty but at least it works.
But where labels really fall over in GitHub is that they aren't shown on pull requests. At least not in the most obvious context—on the page for the pull request (PR) itself. To clarify, GitHub's data model treats PRs more or less like a "subclass" of normal issues. Every PR has an issue (with the same number) associated with it, along with some pull request-specific data such as what comparison to make the PR from, and its merge status. So there's no reason PRs can't have labels—just add labels to the issue associated with a PR. In fact, it's entirely possible to do this through GitHub's API, and I believe some command-line utilities such Hub might support this (though I haven't actually checked). In fact you can even turn a normal issue into a pull request by attaching the right metadata to it—I use this script that Erik Tollerud hacked together to do this all the time.
This use case—converting an issue to a PR—especially illustrates the problem. Say you have an issue with a bunch of labels attached to it, but then you use this script to attach some code to the issue. Refresh the page and suddenly: No more labels. Nothing to distinguish the PR except for what milestone it's assigned to.
That doesn't mean the labels ever went away. In fact, you can still view them on the full list of issues for the repository—the issue listing UI supports labels for normal issues and PRs alike. It even supports a batch editing mode which allows adding and removing issues from PRs. So it's not like they never intended it to be possible. They for some reason just haven't gotten around to adding it to the UI for individual issues.
So anyways, TL;DR: I wrote this Greasemonkey script to display and enable management of labels on pull requests.
The most obvious place for this would be in the same place they appear on normal issues—the right sidebar next to the PR description, under the merge status:
It was very simple to add the appropriate HTML right in this spot. The end result looks something like this:
And it was no trouble to get the label selection menu working (it's just an HTML 5 form):
I chose Handlebars for this purpose, mainly just because I had heard of it, so it was the first thing that popped into mind when I thought "maybe I should use a template system". I read the docs for it and found it satisfying, so I went with it.
This, however, motivated my introduction to the relatively new world of Content Security Protection (CSP). It turns out that Handlebars' template parsing requires being able to perform an eval(), which CSP disallows by default (GitHub would have to explicitly allow it in their CSP rules, and it's for the best that they don't). That said, part of the point of Greasemonkey and userscripts in general is that as a user I have (supposedly) vetted the functionality of this script and have okay'd it to run on my system—in principle CSP should only protect me from malicious scripts of which I did not authorize the execution. But current versions of Firefox, at least, remain overly aggressive in enforcing a site's CSP rules even for userscripts executed on pages from that site.
Digging a little deeper, however, I found that Handlebars supports pre-compilation of templates into executable code that does not require runtime evals or anything of that nature. It was easy enough, following the instructions, to install Handlebars with node.js and run their script to compile my template. Then I just added the template to the GitHub repo for my script and listed it as a prerequisite, after Handlebars itself. That cleared the whole thing up.
The only other challenge was colors: GitHub is using some algorithm server-side to determine good font colors to use in contrast with each label's color. It would be very difficult to determine exactly what they're doing, but with a bit of experimentation I was able to get it "close enough".
So far I've tested this only one Firefox 23 and Chrome 28 (with Tampermonkey) which happen to be the browsers installed on my laptop at the moment. So please let me know if it's successful (or unsuccessful) on other browsers.