Ok, good point. Tristan
On 12/1/17 10:07 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 12/01/2017 10:04 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: >> On 12/01/2017 09:26 AM, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >>> Hello people, >>> >>> I'd like to rationalize the PR labels because I believe some of them are >>> useless: >>> >>> [Ready for review] - Any PR without the [Preview] label must fall under >>> this category >>> [Backport] - The burden should be on the PR owner to create relevant >>> backport PRs, not on the reviewer >> >> I think that [Backport] means that this is already in upstream, and >> therefore review should be mostly formal (not breaking APIs but not >> "this could be done 1% better. > > Hit send too fast... The complexity of a review indicates time spent > with the review; I'd expect a backport review to be a 15 minute job, not > 2 hour one, so when looking for a appetizer before lunch these are > on-sight good candidates. > >> Also it is a second warning for reviewer that this shouldn't be >> cherry-picked on master (when merging from cmdline). > >> >>> [Wait CI Results] - PRs should only be integrated after a successful CI >>> run (or when failures can be proven to be pre-existing) >>> [Check CI Failures!] - The CI runs already add failure/success to the PR >>> status. Checking CI failures should apply to ALL PRs. >>> [On Ice] PR should be closed and reopened when relevant again. >>> >>> Comments/suggestions ? >>> >>> Tristan >> >> > -- Tristan Tarrant Infinispan Lead JBoss, a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev