Hi Greg, You're right, it's a bad idea. I reverted the change.
Cheers On 08/09/2015 15:46, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Loic Dachary <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I wen thru all pull request looking for those not related to anything (like >> having "bug fix" without "core" or "rgw"). Now that there are many labels, >> it's not trivial for someone not used to Ceph to sort out what's what. We >> really have three kinds of labels: >> >> * those that relate the pull request to an area / component of Ceph (rgw, >> core, etc.) >> * those used to remember at what stage of QA the pull request is (wip-* and >> needs*qa) >> * those that describe the kind of pull request (cleanup, bug fix, >> performance etc.) >> >> To help reading the label I prefixed the names of rgw, core, etc. with >> "related to". If someone think that's not helpful or too long to read, feel >> free to revert, it's just a proposal. > > You broke all my bookmarked searches. :( I've updated them now but I'm > really not sure this change is helpful — in particular, we don't need > these labels to make sense to people who aren't used to Ceph and it's > impossible to have them quickly auto-complete now with a long shared > prefix across them all... > -Greg > >> >> Cheers >> >> P.S. For backport snippets that set the component to "core" we'll need to >> change that to "related to core" instead. Not too much of an inconvenience >> IMHO but ... >> >> -- >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
