Bedevere now automatically removes "needs backport to *" labels
When you create a backport PR, if the title is formatted as, e.g. "[3.6] stuff that changed (GH-1234)", then Bedevere will remove the "needs backport to 3.6" label on the GH-1234 PR and leave a comment linking to the backport PR that triggered the label removal.
On 17 June 2017 at 06:30, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
When you create a backport PR, if the title is formatted as, e.g. "[3.6] stuff that changed (GH-1234)", then Bedevere will remove the "needs backport to 3.6" label on the GH-1234 PR and leave a comment linking to the backport PR that triggered the label removal.
Very cool, thank you!
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Does it allow catch for 3.3 and 3.4 branches? I got notifications for 3.6, 3.5 and 2.7 backports of https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1849 but not for the 3.3 and 3.4 backports: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/2291 https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/2292
These two backports have the same format: title ending with " #2291" and "(cherry picked from commit 90e01e5)" in the description.
Victor
2017-06-16 22:30 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>:
When you create a backport PR, if the title is formatted as, e.g. "[3.6] stuff that changed (GH-1234)", then Bedevere will remove the "needs backport to 3.6" label on the GH-1234 PR and leave a comment linking to the backport PR that triggered the label removal.
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
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.
Mariatta Wijaya
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Does it allow catch for 3.3 and 3.4 branches? I got notifications for 3.6, 3.5 and 2.7 backports of https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/1849 but not for the 3.3 and 3.4 backports: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/2291 https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/2292
These two backports have the same format: title ending with " #2291" and "(cherry picked from commit 90e01e5)" in the description.
Victor
2017-06-16 22:30 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>:
When you create a backport PR, if the title is formatted as, e.g. "[3.6] stuff that changed (GH-1234)", then Bedevere will remove the "needs backport to 3.6" label on the GH-1234 PR and leave a comment linking to the backport PR that triggered the label removal.
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
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 ;-)
Victor
On 6/20/2017 11:36 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
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,
I would rather we don't,
but only security changes should be backported to 3.3 and 3.4.
and these will hopefully remain rare.
I can do the bot job for these specific backports ;-)
In the future, 'needs backport to x.y' will mean 'attempt to do the backport automatically'. (The labels should then be changed to "Backport to x.y") Backports to older versions are more likely to have merge conflicts and need manual intervention or even pre-commit testing anyway.
tjr
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 08:37 Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
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).
participants (5)
-
Brett Cannon -
Mariatta Wijaya -
Nick Coghlan -
Terry Reedy -
Victor Stinner