From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Abhishek Lekshmanan Subject: Re: needs-backport label on github/ceph/ceph Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:02:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87mv6qqt4h.fsf@suse.com> References: <7f97669a-f05d-328b-a854-25f749742ccb@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from smtp.nue.novell.com ([195.135.221.5]:52457 "EHLO smtp.nue.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754034AbdHWOC4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:02:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: kefu chai , Nathan Cutler Cc: John Spray , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" kefu chai writes: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Nathan Cutler wrote: >> On 08/22/2017 05:12 PM, John Spray wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:09 PM, kefu chai wrote: >>>> >>>> i noticed that we have a new label named "needs-backport" [0]? could >>>> you shed some light on how we are supposed to use it? i thought we >>>> were going to cherry-pick all PRs with this label merged after the >>>> luminous was forked. but seems we are still marking PRs should be >>>> included by luminous with the "luminous" milestone. so i have no clues >>>> now =( >>> >>> >>> I'm curious too -- I believe the authoriative way to mark something >>> for backport is in a tracker ticket, so a separate label probably >>> isn't needed? >> >> >> Maybe it was added to accommodate/facilitate a "fast-track" backporting >> process for the early stages of the luminous release cycle? >> >> ISTR that jewel v10.2.1 went very quickly and some of the backports did not >> "cross all the t's and dot all the i's" wrt the sanctioned backporting >> process. Maybe something like that is a possibility for luminous as well? (I >> would welcome it.) >> >> It could work like this: if a PR is marked "needs-backport", the developer >> who merges the PR would be responsible for ensuring that the commits are >> cherry-picked to luminous and marking the tracker, if any, "Resolved" with a >> note that the backport is already done. > > thank you, Nathan! that makes sense. Can we ensure that we always have a tracker issue when there is a pending backport label, makes it easier to track these. -- Abhishek Lekshmanan SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)