Re: pending-pullups

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

dholland@ wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:58:35PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
>  > > (the reason, besides "that's how it's been used since it was added",
>  > > is that the pending-pullups state distinguishes "PRs that somebody
>  > > needs to work on" from "PRs that are waiting on releng", which is an
>  > > important distinction when looking for work to do.)
>  > > 
>  > > we ought to have a pullups-needed state; maybe we should just add it
>  > > to gnats.
>  > 
>  > Why do you think two independent states are necessary? What's benefit?
> 
> So that someone searching gnats can tell if a PR they're looking at
> requires action or not.
> 
> Releng doesn't do that, that's what the ticket queues are for. (And
> that's why PRs with pending pullups are supposed to have ticket
> numbers listed, to make sure we can check from the gnats end whether
> things have been handled or not.)
> 
> However, for people looking for PRs to work on, or people maintaining
> the database, or people looking at the PR counts, it's an important
> distinction.

The current problem we have is there is no way to remind
"commits that should be pulled up to release branches once after
 it's confirmed that they won't have any bad side effect on HEAD."

Adding a new status is still fine, though I just wonder if
the additional states/tasks are appropriate for the benefit,
than just adding a new similar meaning to the existing state.

---
Izumi Tsutsui