@smilner @cherylfong - PTAL
LGTM
@cherylfong WDYT?
LGTM2
WDYT about upstream_atomic and upstream_cl as tags? That way, we could easily look in JIRA at # of issues completed for CL and Atomic.
I agree with @nstielau 's idea
Good morning. :)
Any further changes here?
I think i'd rather keep it generic. Some of our work will come from syncing of issues like this and some won't so we'd have to do extra work to get tracking accurate anyway, right?
Good morning. :) Any further changes here?
morning ralph, yeah let us work through the comment in the code first. will ping you when done.
Why not have the generic, i.e. upstream and the ones Nick suggested? I think it's helpful to have upstream as this will bring up all upstream issues, and then to separate those, we could use either upstream_cl or upstream_atomic. It's a nice option to have.
upstream
upstream_cl
upstream_atomic
+1 I'll update the PR
1 new commit added
add upstream_cl and upstream_atomic labels
added new labels. @ralph this is good for merge now
Thanks. Let's give it a spin!
Pull-Request has been merged by ralph