On 17 October 2016 at 17:51, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Maybe just a tag like [PULL for-stable], or [PULL for-2.7]? > > The latter seems to mirror how we handle things for patches coming for > master during freeze. Others who've submitted patches they've > backported themselves for stable seem to naturally lean toward that > approach as well. > > That said, this might get confusing immediately after a release, where > there are a lot of patches floating around with such tags, cc:'d for > stable, that aren't actually meant to be directly pulled into stable. > So I think I would lean toward "for-stable", or, even better, > "for-2.7.1", etc. > > I don't do automated pulls so it's not a huge deal either way for me, > but "for-x" in general should hopefully be enough for Peter to filter > them out for master based on what whether "x" references the next > major release or not.
I don't really want to have to update my email filters every time we do a release, though, and so "for-X.Y" doesn't work because when we are in the runup to release pull requests targeting master tend to be marked that way. Maybe just having not-for-master pull requests say "not for master" in the cover letter somewhere ? thanks -- PMM
