On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, 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? I added it for tagging PRs that don't have a tracker ticket open (e.g., small usability cleanups that weren't bugs). It's a bit less overhead than opening a ticket and going through the usual process. It was helpful when every third PR had to be cherry-picked to luminous; that will be less common once the release is out the door. sage -- 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
