On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 08:37 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-06-20 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wij...@gmail.com>: > > I think it's because there was no 'needs backport to 3.4' label from PR > > 1849, so it doesn't make the comment about 3.4 backport PR. > > Oh, I see. These labels don't exist :-) Maybe we should add them, but > only security changes should be backported to 3.3 and 3.4. I can do > the bot job for these specific backports ;-) > Mariatta's right that the lack of label short-circuited leaving a comment to avoid messing up with the detection of a backport PR. Basically if the label doesn't exist then the assumption is the PR isn't actually a backport. As for adding 3.3 and 3.4 labels, I'm somewhat with Terry that those should be so rare to use that I don't' know if they are worth it. Plus we don't want core devs forgetting that they shouldn't backport to those versions (I know I wouldn't remember that Larry plans another 3.5 release if it wasn't for the labels).
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
