Hi Nathan, On 11/15/18 8:02 AM, Nathan Cutler wrote: > Yes, each backport PR has a separate issue in the backport tracker, and > the full PR URL is placed in the _description_ (not in a custom field). > Also, there is no "need review" status in the backport tracker. > > Theoretically, the script could of course take these two differences > into account. If the PR is targeting a stable branch, it would change > the tracker status to "In progress" instead of "Need review" and put the > PR URL in the issue description instead of putting the PR number in the > PR ID custom field. > > So, yes, under these conditions I agree. Thanks! So even for backports there is a 1:1 relationship between tracker issues and their corresponding pull requests that could be captured with this custom field. > But if you are suggesting to use the new PR ID custom field in the > backport tracker, I'd rather not, for the following reasons. > > First, the backport issues are created by copying. This brings in a lot > of duplicated information from the master issue - especially the entire > description (which can be very long) and all attachments (if any). The > script that creates the backport issues wipes the description clean and > deletes any attachments. Later, when the backport PR is opened, its full > URL is placed in the description. Just to clarify - is this the URL of the *backport PR*, or a link to the *original PR* that is being backported? > This, in my view, is better than having an empty description, which > is what I presume we'd have if we switched to the PR ID field (I have > not checked if it's possible to disable the description field). > > Second, having the PR URL as the sole piece of information in the > description really puts "front and center" what is, in the huge majority > of cases, the only salient/relevant piece of information regarding the > backport. Occasionally backport issues have some additional > backporting-specific information attached to them in the form of > comments, and this works well. > > Third, we have scripting that automates the process of creating the > backport tracker issues and backport PRs, as well as > updating/cross-linking the two. Someone (presumably me) would need to > modify the scripts to accommodate the new custom field, yet the > usefulness of the field for backporting is not clear. The primary intention of this field is to have a consistent way of associating a pull request with the corresponding tracker issue, as there did not seem to be a consistent / reliable method for doing so (other than pasting the URL into a comment). I think it does not matter if the issue is an actual bug/feature or a backport issue - they all have a corresponding PR on github that addresses the issue. > Fourth, as far as I can tell, the Pull Request ID field only takes a > number (at least, I got "Pull request ID is not a number" when I tried > to put a URL in it). I find having the entire URL of the PR readily > available in the tracker issue highly convenient and I'm reluctant to > give up that convenience. Hmm, but the entire URL is still available? You right-click on the ID and select "Copy Link Location". Or am I missing something? Lenz -- SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany) GF:Felix Imendörffer,Jane Smithard,Graham Norton,HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
