Re: GitLab conventions

To identify backports I look at open tickets bearing the "backport needed" label.

That's good to know, thanks. What should become of small MRs that are made directly against `master` (without a corresponding issue) that are intended to be backported as well? Does it suffice to label those with "backport needed", or should we also open "backport needed"–labeled issues as well to ensure that they're caught? (I have [1] and [2] in mind when asking this question.) I ask since if the former suffices, that would imply that the set of places that one would need to look to find all things that need to be backported would be: 1. The set of all open tickets labeled with "backport needed", unioned with 2. The set of all resolved MRs labeled with "backport needed". Unfortunately, GitLab doesn't appear to give you a way to view both simultaneously (unless I'm missing something), which is why I thought it worthwhile to ask you if this state of affairs would be inconvenient. Ryan S. ----- [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/merge_requests/650 [2] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/merge_requests/639 On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:24 PM Ben Gamari wrote:

Ryan Scott writes:

...

Thanks! The updated information is now on https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/wikis/gitlab/merge-requests, for those who are curious:

...

While the release manager can perform the backport on your behalf, it is appreciated if you open a merge request with the backported patches yourself.

One further question: if a patch (that is intended to be backported) first lands on master, is it considered good practice to leave the corresponding issue open until the backport happens, similar to Trac's "merge" status? Or is this practice obsolete in the new label-based workflow?

Indeed this should be documented (which I have done): the ticket should remain open. To identify backports I look at open tickets bearing the "backport needed" label.

Cheers,

- Ben