Nathan Cutler <ncutler@xxxxxxx> writes: >> Can we ensure that we always have a tracker issue when there is a >> pending backport label, makes it easier to track these. > > I thought the whole idea was to make a "fast-track" backporting process > which would not require a tracker for each backport. With the > understanding that it would only be used early in the release cycle. If > a backport is "fast-tracked" the merging developer would be responsible > for doing and merging the cherry-picks. > > If there is a tracker, of course, then the normal workflow would apply > regardless of the presence/absence of this "needs-backport" tag. Sure makes sense, sorry, didn't see Sage's mail (until after I sent mine), yeah it does make sense for until the first backport release or so for using this tag. -- 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
