On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/22/2017 05:12 PM, John Spray wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:09 PM, kefu chai <tchaikov@xxxxxxxxx> 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. -- Regards Kefu Chai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
