Kathey Marsden <[email protected]> writes: > I do periodic analysis of bug fixes for backport and don't have a > process for marking issues that have been analyzed and rejected as > candidates. Perhaps I am label happy this week but was thinking that > it would be nice to add labels. > > derby_backport_<version>_no > > to mark the ones that have been rejected with the maximum version > where a backport is determined impractical or unfeasible. For example > derby_backport_10_5_no would mean it was looked at and determined > inappropriate for 10.5 backporting. Does this sound reasonable? It > could be added during the backport analysis phase or even as someone > fixes a bug if they think there is a reason it shouldn't be
I think the idea is great, but more reserved about the name you propose; it seems to mean the opposite of what you have in mind :-) Perhaps "backport_reject_<version>" Thanks, Dag
