Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-12-03 Thread Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
Markus,

Please go ahead with new labels for backport, let’s start with “backport 
[branch name]”. If it becomes too noisy, it is easy to change (ie. the label 
names).

Best, Nicklas

> On 22 Nov 2022, at 21:40, Even Rouault  wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 22/11/2022 à 19:51, Nicklas Larsson a écrit :
>> Looks like a clever little bot. In case that is the way the community choose 
>> to go then the label will have to be “backport releasebranch_8_2”, which is 
>> very long…
>> I also wonder how useful it would be at the moment for GRASS, e.g. wide 
>> ranging indentation changes often causes conflicts between main and latest 
>> release branches.
> 
> Sure the bot just tries to git cherry-pick commits, and if they don't apply 
> cleanly, it obviously fails, with reports like 
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/50943#issuecomment-1322647971
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
> 

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Even Rouault


Le 22/11/2022 à 19:51, Nicklas Larsson a écrit :

Looks like a clever little bot. In case that is the way the community choose to 
go then the label will have to be “backport releasebranch_8_2”, which is very 
long…
I also wonder how useful it would be at the moment for GRASS, e.g. wide ranging 
indentation changes often causes conflicts between main and latest release 
branches.


Sure the bot just tries to git cherry-pick commits, and if they don't 
apply cleanly, it obviously fails, with reports like 
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/50943#issuecomment-1322647971



--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Vaclav Petras
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 14:54, Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev <
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> ...In case that is the way the community choose to go then the label will
> have to be “backport releasebranch_8_2”, which is very long…
>

We could revisit the names of branches. The word branch seems unnecessary,
esp. when the readability is questionable anyway due to the two separate
words without any separator.
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
Looks like a clever little bot. In case that is the way the community choose to 
go then the label will have to be “backport releasebranch_8_2”, which is very 
long…
I also wonder how useful it would be at the moment for GRASS, e.g. wide ranging 
indentation changes often causes conflicts between main and latest release 
branches.



> On 22 Nov 2022, at 18:52, Even Rouault  wrote:
> 
> For the backport bot 
> (https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/master/.github/workflows/backport.yml) to 
> work, I believe the label must be exactly "backport {git_branch_name}"
> 
> Le 22/11/2022 à 18:47, Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev a écrit :
>> I think this is a splendid idea!
>> 
>> Would be good to keep the label as short as possible, perhaps:
>> - "backport 8.0"
>> - "backport 8.2”
>> ?
>> 
>> At any rate, I have no strong opinion regarding the form, I fully support 
>> the general idea.
>> 
>> Best, Nicklas
>> 
>> 
>>> On 22 Nov 2022, at 12:00, Markus Neteler  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi devs,
>>> 
>>> Our generic "backport" label seems to be mildly confusing (backport to
>>> which branch?).
>>> 
>>> My suggestion is to adopt the approach of GDAL:
>>> 
>>> - backport release 7.8
>>> - backport release 8.2
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> Like this also multiple labels could be set.
>>> 
>>> Opinions?
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Markus
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Markus Neteler, PhD
>>> https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
>>> https://grass.osgeo.org
>>> https://courses.neteler.org/blog
>>> ___
>>> grass-dev mailing list
>>> grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>> ___
>> grass-dev mailing list
>> grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
> 
> -- 
> http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
> 

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Even Rouault
For the backport bot 
(https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/master/.github/workflows/backport.yml) 
to work, I believe the label must be exactly "backport {git_branch_name}"


Le 22/11/2022 à 18:47, Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev a écrit :

I think this is a splendid idea!

Would be good to keep the label as short as possible, perhaps:
- "backport 8.0"
- "backport 8.2”
?

At any rate, I have no strong opinion regarding the form, I fully support the 
general idea.

Best, Nicklas



On 22 Nov 2022, at 12:00, Markus Neteler  wrote:

Hi devs,

Our generic "backport" label seems to be mildly confusing (backport to
which branch?).

My suggestion is to adopt the approach of GDAL:

- backport release 7.8
- backport release 8.2
...

Like this also multiple labels could be set.

Opinions?

cheers,
Markus

--
Markus Neteler, PhD
https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
https://grass.osgeo.org
https://courses.neteler.org/blog
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
I think this is a splendid idea!

Would be good to keep the label as short as possible, perhaps:
- "backport 8.0"
- "backport 8.2”
?

At any rate, I have no strong opinion regarding the form, I fully support the 
general idea.

Best, Nicklas


> On 22 Nov 2022, at 12:00, Markus Neteler  wrote:
> 
> Hi devs,
> 
> Our generic "backport" label seems to be mildly confusing (backport to
> which branch?).
> 
> My suggestion is to adopt the approach of GDAL:
> 
> - backport release 7.8
> - backport release 8.2
> ...
> 
> Like this also multiple labels could be set.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> cheers,
> Markus
> 
> -- 
> Markus Neteler, PhD
> https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
> https://grass.osgeo.org
> https://courses.neteler.org/blog
> ___
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Jeff McKenna

Hi Markus,

For the MapServer project, I enabled the following names, which seems to 
make sense, as it references the actual branch name (as in 'branch-8-0') 
in the label name, such as:


  backport branch-6-4
  backport branch-7-4
  backport branch-7-6
  backport branch-8-0

This seems to work very well (no questions from the various devs).



-jeff



On 2022-11-22 7:00 a.m., Markus Neteler wrote:

Hi devs,

Our generic "backport" label seems to be mildly confusing (backport to
which branch?).

My suggestion is to adopt the approach of GDAL:

- backport release 7.8
- backport release 8.2
...

Like this also multiple labels could be set.

Opinions?

cheers,
Markus



--
Jeff McKenna
GatewayGeo: Developers of MS4W, MapServer Consulting and Training
co-founder of FOSS4G
http://gatewaygeo.com/

___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Re: [GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Ondřej Pešek
út 22. 11. 2022 v 14:24 odesílatel Markus Neteler  napsal:
> Our generic "backport" label seems to be mildly confusing (backport to
> which branch?).
>
> My suggestion is to adopt the approach of GDAL:
>
> - backport release 7.8
> - backport release 8.2
> ...

I like that.

But maybe keeping just the last versions? E.g., once the current
version of GRASS will be 8.7, it probably does not make sense to keep
the label backport_release_8.2, right? (just to avoid having 50 labels
just for backporting)
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


[GRASS-dev] GitHub backport label proposal

2022-11-22 Thread Markus Neteler
Hi devs,

Our generic "backport" label seems to be mildly confusing (backport to
which branch?).

My suggestion is to adopt the approach of GDAL:

- backport release 7.8
- backport release 8.2
...

Like this also multiple labels could be set.

Opinions?

cheers,
Markus

-- 
Markus Neteler, PhD
https://www.mundialis.de - free data with free software
https://grass.osgeo.org
https://courses.neteler.org/blog
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev