On Wed, 17 May 2017 11:35:29 -0700, Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> It's possible, but remember not all PRs have bpo-issue, eg those with
> trivial label.
> In that case, what should the backport branch be?
> So we might end up with two backport branch name patterns, eg
> `backport-bpo--` and `backp
>
> * Currently, cherry-picker works a single step. It would be nice to
> have at least 2 steps: first cherry-pick locally, then allow to review
> the patch locally and run some specific tests, and then send the PR.
The --no-push parameter allows you to test changes locally first. Then you
can us
Hi,
I wanted to wait a little bit before giving back my feedback on the
new workflow. I just attend Brett Canon's talk at the Language Summit.
So here are my misc notes on the new workflow.
* Is there anyone already working on the workflow who would like to
get a grant (money!) from the PSF?
* I