On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 1:35 PM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,In order to improve the handling of backports (3 stable releases means x3 process amplification) and to focus attention on the ones really requiring thorough reviews, what about using a label to indicate that the backport was conflict-less (e.g.: "clean-backport")?It could start as a manual action, but if useful it could also be easily automated with a Github Action or directly from the ceph-backport script.
Hi Ernesto,
Yeah, something like "backport:no-conflicts" and "backport:has-conflicts" would be good to have. I'd prefer two explicit labels to make searches easier and catch when automation suddenly stops working and nothing gets labeled.
Going further, it would be helpful to distinguish fully clean backports (clean cherry-picks made with "git cherry-pick -x", entire master PR is taken -- no commits are added or dropped, etc). We sort of have that in the form of the "this backport was staged using ceph-backport.sh" comment, but when someone asks to pull in another PR/commit, those later commits are usually done by hand. In particular, folks may forget to use "git cherry-pick -x" and lose the "cherry picked from commit" annotations. Also, not everyone uses ceph-backport.sh script, so I think the automation needs to be independent of it.
Additionally, adding a size label (XL, L, M, S, ...) might also help everyone quickly understand the complexity and/or when searching PRs in Github.
This one I'm not sure about because diffstat size is a rather poor indicator of complexity. We already have quite a lot of labels, so we need be concious of cluttering that space with something that isn't really useful. That's just my opinion though -- others might like it ;)
Thanks,
Ilya
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
