kefu chai <tchaikov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. 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) -- 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
