On 12/01/2017 10:04 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 12/01/2017 09:26 AM, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >> Hello people, >> >> I'd like to rationalize the PR labels because I believe some of them are >> useless: >> >> [Ready for review] - Any PR without the [Preview] label must fall under >> this category >> [Backport] - The burden should be on the PR owner to create relevant >> backport PRs, not on the reviewer > > I think that [Backport] means that this is already in upstream, and > therefore review should be mostly formal (not breaking APIs but not > "this could be done 1% better.
Hit send too fast... The complexity of a review indicates time spent with the review; I'd expect a backport review to be a 15 minute job, not 2 hour one, so when looking for a appetizer before lunch these are on-sight good candidates. > Also it is a second warning for reviewer that this shouldn't be > cherry-picked on master (when merging from cmdline). > >> [Wait CI Results] - PRs should only be integrated after a successful CI >> run (or when failures can be proven to be pre-existing) >> [Check CI Failures!] - The CI runs already add failure/success to the PR >> status. Checking CI failures should apply to ALL PRs. >> [On Ice] PR should be closed and reopened when relevant again. >> >> Comments/suggestions ? >> >> Tristan > > -- Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> JBoss Performance Team _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev