2017-06-20 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com>:
> I think it's because there was no 'needs backport to 3.4' label from PR
> 1849, so it doesn't make the comment about 3.4 backport PR.
Oh, I see. These labels don't exist :-) Maybe we should add them, but
only security changes should be backported to 3.3 and 3.4. I can do
the bot job for these specific backports ;-)
Mariatta's right that the lack of label short-circuited leaving a comment to avoid messing up with the detection of a backport PR. Basically if the label doesn't exist then the assumption is the PR isn't actually a backport.
As for adding 3.3 and 3.4 labels, I'm somewhat with Terry that those should be so rare to use that I don't' know if they are worth it. Plus we don't want core devs forgetting that they shouldn't backport to those versions (I know I wouldn't remember that Larry plans another 3.5 release if it wasn't for the labels).