On 17 October 2016 at 17:51, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Maybe just a tag like [PULL for-stable], or [PULL for-2.7]?
> The latter seems to mirror how we handle things for patches coming for
> master during freeze. Others who've submitted patches they've
> backported themselves for stable seem to naturally lean toward that
> approach as well.
> That said, this might get confusing immediately after a release, where
> there are a lot of patches floating around with such tags, cc:'d for
> stable, that aren't actually meant to be directly pulled into stable.
> So I think I would lean toward "for-stable", or, even better,
> "for-2.7.1", etc.
> I don't do automated pulls so it's not a huge deal either way for me,
> but "for-x" in general should hopefully be enough for Peter to filter
> them out for master based on what whether "x" references the next
> major release or not.

I don't really want to have to update my email filters every
time we do a release, though, and so "for-X.Y" doesn't work because
when we are in the runup to release pull requests targeting
master tend to be marked that way.

Maybe just having not-for-master pull requests say "not for master"
in the cover letter somewhere ?

-- PMM

Reply via email to