New issue type for flatpak

[ShivanKaul]

Resolves #40198

Submitter Checklist:

• I confirm that no security/privacy review is needed, or that I have requested one
• There is a ticket for my issue
• Used Github auto-closing keywords in the PR description above
• Wrote a good PR/commit description
• Added appropriate labels (QA/Yes or QA/No; release-notes/include or release-notes/exclude; OS/...) to the associated issue
• Checked the PR locally: npm run test -- brave_browser_tests, npm run test -- brave_unit_tests, npm run lint, npm run gn_check, npm run tslint
• Ran git rebase master (if needed)

Reviewer Checklist:

• A security review is not needed, or a link to one is included in the PR description
• New files have MPL-2.0 license header
• Adequate test coverage exists to prevent regressions
• Major classes, functions and non-trivial code blocks are well-commented
• Changes in component dependencies are properly reflected in gn
• Code follows the style guide
• Test plan is specified in PR before merging

After-merge Checklist:

• The associated issue milestone is set to the smallest version that the
  changes has landed on
• All relevant documentation has been updated, for instance:
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove)
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Proxy-redirected-URLs
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Fingerprinting-Protections
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Brave%E2%80%99s-Use-of-Referral-Codes
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Custom-Headers
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Web-Compatibility-Exceptions-in-Brave
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/QA-Guide
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/P3A
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Brave-Wallet

Test Plan:

[wknapik]

That's the current order

I'd suggest a different position on the list - 5th between iOS and Feature request

This way per-platform issues would be first and then everything else would follow

[wknapik]

I'd drop the empty line

[wknapik]

This omits some of the questions from the desktop template, that would still be relevant. If we really want to have a dedicated template just for flatpak, it should cover the usual questions, I think.

We could consider a combined template for snap + flatpak. Idk, just a thought.

[fmarier]

Do we need a separate issue template for this? For comparison, with Snap, we've just been using the OS/Linux/Snap label and it's been okay.

The reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure a lot of users will pick that given how many different choices we have (see Wojciech's screenshot).

[fmarier]

A related thing that would help identify Flatpak users is #24327

Maybe we should also add it to the webcompat reporter.

[ShivanKaul]

@fmarier my thinking here was that we're pointing users from the Flathub org to brave-core, so they would be looking for a Flatpak issue type, and for us, capturing that would be useful for triaging. I don't have strong opinions here though.

Thinking about it more, I agree that #24327 would fix this problem.

[ShivanKaul]

Closing in favour of #24327.