In message <20180622010813.gy4...@kduck.kaduk.org> on Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:08:13
-0500, Benjamin Kaduk said:
kaduk> What's still unclear to me in the current scheme is how I'm supposed to
kaduk> indicate something that is (intentionally) API/ABI-breaking and must be
kaduk> postponed to the next
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:29:37PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message on Wed, 20 Jun
> 2018 19:59:02 +, "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre"
> said:
>
> Matthias.St.Pierre> III) VERSION NUMBER LABELS
> Matthias.St.Pierre>
> Matthias.St.Pierre> It seems like the version number labels
> Matthias.St.Pierre> The github search index allows to search for
> 'base:' which is a much Matthias.St.Pierre> more reliable way of
> determining the target branch:
>
> I'm learning something new, I had no clue of the 'base:' feature.
Me neither, until today ;-). I looked it up on a useful
> Matthias.St.Pierre> A propos: it might be useful to split the 'pending
> Matthias.St.Pierre> 2nd review' into two different labels (of the same color):
> Matthias.St.Pierre>
> Matthias.St.Pierre> 'pending 2nd review' -> 'review-required'
> and
> 'omc-review-required'
>
> I'm
In message on Wed, 20 Jun
2018 19:59:02 +, "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre"
said:
Matthias.St.Pierre> There are a lot of things that come to my mind when I see
all those labels:
Matthias.St.Pierre>
Matthias.St.Pierre> IMHO there are too many of them and for some of them the
precise meaning is
There are a lot of things that come to my mind when I see all those labels:
IMHO there are too many of them and for some of them the precise meaning is
not clear. So maybe we should reduce their number a bit and document the
meaning and semantics of the other.
I) NAMING CONVENTIONS
First of
