[PATCH] D26963: [docs] Add user-side for blockers/merges

[Tom Stellard via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

tstellarAMD added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26963#606697, @hans wrote:

> > I also think backport requests should be a separate bugzilla entry from the initial bug report. I realize this may be inconvenient, but it makes it much easier to track.
>
> I personally prefer the "reply to the commit email and cc me" approach since that includes the context of the commit, keeps the merge discussion on the same thread on the mailing list, and is low overhead. I'm not picky about this though, as long as an email is generated.


I think "reply to the commit email and cc me"  works better for the x.y.0 releases, because all the commits being backported are fairly recent.  For the stable releases, a lot of times people are requesting a 3+ month old commit be backported, they don't always have the commit email in their inbox any more.

However, my preference is to have policies that make the release manager's life easier, so I don't have any objections to doing the x.y.0 requests via email, but for the stable releases, I think bugzilla use should be mandatory.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D26963