OK then it seems like the there is no real need to apply `cherry-pick for *` anymore?
+1 from me for not having to apply `cherry-pick for *` label. I can update cherry_picker.py readme and the devguide, if we're all ok with it :) what's probably more important is the backport PR > title pattern of: > [X.Y] <whatever> (GH-<PR number>) Yes, cherry_picker.py does this for you :) In the devguide though, we've only instructed people to prefix it with [X.Y], but did not mention about `GH-<PR number>`. I'll open an issue. Thanks :) Mariatta Wijaya On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 May 2017 at 03:23, Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wij...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Right now I'm only using the cherry-pick labels to verify whether a > backport > > has been done or not, so then I can remove the `needs backport to` label > > from the original PR. > > For that purpose, what's probably more important is the backport PR > title pattern of: > > [X.Y] <whatever> (GH-<PR number>) > > The fact it's a cherry-pick is implied by the reference to the > original PR (also indicated by the git cherry-pick message in the > commit body), while the [X.Y] indicates which branch it's for. > > The labels are also going to convey strictly less information than > that, since they won't indicate the original PR number or the > cherry-picked commit hash. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
