Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Consider using a prefix in the title of backport PRs #23

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
berkerpeksag opened this issue Feb 11, 2017 · 18 comments
Closed

Consider using a prefix in the title of backport PRs #23

berkerpeksag opened this issue Feb 11, 2017 · 18 comments

Comments

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member

Can we use a prefix like [backport to X.Y] or [3.6] for backport PRs? For example:

[backport to X.Y] bpo-1234: Fix comment in tokenizer.c

This way we can easily see which PRs are backports on GitHub and we can also set appropriate email filters.

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

I think appropriate labels would be better, otherwise we have to remember what the format is while a label is just right there and labels are more searchable.

Since we have "backport to 3.6" we could add "cherry-pick for 3.6" for PRs which are an actual backport. Does that sound reasonable?

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

"cherry-pick for 3.6" sounds good to me. I don't know how can I create email filters for labels though :)

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

Ah, that's why you want the prefix in the title. 😉 I've gone ahead and added the appropriate labels so we can give them a try and see how it works out.

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

Can we have backport pending label, to identify that the PR should be backported but it hasn't happened yet?

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

Nvm just read your email to python-dev. So backport to X.Y is to be removed once cherry-pick for X.Y PR is created.

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

🤔 I realize that @berkerpeksag still wants to be able to filter out the backport emails.
Is [backport to X.Y] still the desired prefix in this case? :)

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

brettcannon commented Feb 14, 2017

The way I read "backport to 3.6" is this needs to be backported to 3.6, not that it's a backport for 3.6. So if we do decide to drop the labels and go with title prefixes I would argue for [backport for 3.6] or [cherry-pick for 3.6] or [cp for 3.6].

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

All of your suggestions look good to me, @brettcannon. The reason I prefer title prefixes is that it's easy to notice backport PRs without using GitHub UI.

See the attached screenshot. Both of them backport PRs (for 3.5 and 3.6 branches) with almost same title so it's a little bit hard to notice the difference :)

backport-prs

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

Then try both labels and prefix for a month and see which one ends up being useful. And to unify with the labels let's go with [cherry-pick for 3.6].

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

Actually could GH-24 take care of this by including the labels in the title automatically?

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

I might be wrong, but GH-24 is about sending an email to python-checkins when a PR ws merged.

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

And so you want an email at creation instead?

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

Another nice thing about issue title notations, is that then a bot can automatically add the label :)

The two prefixes I've seen so far are:

BackportXY
[cherry-pick for X.Y]

Both of those seem really wordy to me, and I think a simple [X.Y] should suffice

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

ncoghlan commented Feb 18, 2017

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

This is already recommended in this section of the devguide :)

@brettcannon
Copy link
Member

Since we are now documenting this as a thing to do, I'm closing this (I don't think we can drop the label due to the fact that search for [3.6] does not turn up what you expect; although if people start typing out [cherry-pick for 3.6] we might be able to drop the labels.)

@methane
Copy link
Member

methane commented Mar 21, 2017

As my understanding, [3.6] prefix is only for pull request title, not for commit message.
Am I right?

@berkerpeksag
Copy link
Member Author

As my understanding, [3.6] prefix is only for pull request title, not for commit message.

Correct. I use it in only PR titles, but other projects use it in commit messages too. See Django for example.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants