I think that usage (1) is the correct use of "blocker," and usage (3) is not. Usage (2) should have a new name, as Vincent proposes. Failing that, this new use of "blocker" must be documented in https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/review.html.
On Monday, February 26, 2024 at 4:21:58 PM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote: > On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 2:43:18 AM UTC+9 Vincent Delecroix wrote: > > In that case, let me do a proposal. > > Introduce a new label distinct from "blocker" for > > usage 2: PRs that should be merged temporarily before CI tests run > > > I meant by "merged temporarily" the "CI fixes" in Matthias' explanation: > > - *Within the release candidate stage,* developers who mark a PR as a > "blocker" so that it be merged in the upcoming stable release need to know > whether their blocker PR will be conflicting with other blockers (= > candidates for merging in the next rc). Having the "blocker" label double > as the "CI fixes" trigger takes care of this. > > So blocker PRs get the chance to be tested together before the release by > the "CI fixes" mechanism. Thus "usage 1" and "usage 2" are connected. > Having distinct labels for them does not reflect the connection. > > I propose (as this discussion is a place to give proposals :-) to give > "the chance to be tested together" only to blocker PRs with "positive > review". This slightly separates "usage 1" and "usage 2". This proposal was > suggested when the "CI fixes" mechanism was introduced, and can be > activated easily. > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/001204a7-53fe-43ec-8be6-d2dbdd15b69dn%40googlegroups.com.
