From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Cutler Subject: Re: Proposal for a Backport tracker Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:41:41 +0200 Message-ID: <555DD285.3050204@suse.cz> References: <555DC080.8050508@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44528 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753001AbbEUMln (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 08:41:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <555DC080.8050508@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Loic Dachary , Ceph Development > * a backport issue is created in the "Backport" tracker and is > "Related" to the original issue Hi Loic: I like the idea of having backport tickets in a separate Redmine subproject/issue tracker. In fact, I would go even a step further and have separate subprojects for each target version (hammer backports, firefly backports). Having all, e.g. hammer, backports in one place is advantageous in pretty much every way I can think of: easier to see what has been done, what needs to be done, easier to search, easier to automate, less risk of munging something not related to backports... It also has the effect of removing all the backport-related tickets from the bug tracker(s). Nathan