Mailing List Archive

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 17:28:29 -0400
James E Keenan <jkeenan@pobox.com> wrote:

> Since we're now in that next dev cycle, is there any reason to retain
> the label?

It's definitely a good idea to keep the label itself as we reuse it
every year around release-time.

But yes, it's probably best to go through that list and check whether
we can merge them all in now. Ideally that label should sit empty for
the 10 or so months of the year that we're not getting ready for a new
major release.

--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans

leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/

On 7/9/23 18:03, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 17:28:29 -0400
> James E Keenan <jkeenan@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Since we're now in that next dev cycle, is there any reason to retain
>> the label?
>
> It's definitely a good idea to keep the label itself as we reuse it
> every year around release-time.
>
> But yes, it's probably best to go through that list and check whether
> we can merge them all in now. Ideally that label should sit empty for
> the 10 or so months of the year that we're not getting ready for a new
> major release.
>

I have removed the 'defer-next-dev' label from all Open tickets. One
was actually an issue, not a pull request. Some others will remain
blocked because they're in Draft status or have merge conflicts. Where
appropriate, I posted in those issues to ask the requestor for a status
update.

So now these can be treated like any other pull requests. The label
still remains in our repository; in 6-8 months we'll start to re-apply
it once we have an idea what is good for 5.40 and what needs to be
deferred to 5.42.

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan