Revise the "Backporting merged changes" guide

[StanFromIreland]

I find the current instructions a little brief, so I propose expanding them a little more like so. Generally focusing on cherry-picker, I don't think we also need to document the complete instructions for doing it with git here. If this is merged, I plan to add a link to the section to the template failed-backport response, e.g.:

[read-the-docs-community]

Documentation build overview

📚 CPython devguide | 🛠️ Build #32970625 | 📁 Comparing 0ac0eca against latest (96e4d96)

🔍 Preview build

7 files changed · ± 7 modified

±Modified

• versions/index.html
• core-team/committing/index.html
• getting-started/git-boot-camp/index.html
• getting-started/pull-request-lifecycle/index.html
• security/policy/index.html
• security/psrt/index.html
• documentation/translations/translating/index.html

[StanFromIreland]

Thanks for the review @JelleZijlstra (can I get another one ;-), I also noticed I had mistaken a duplicate section as this section. I've now merged the two sections, I moved it to the more general page as I don't think we need to limit backporting to commiters.

[encukou]

I think there's some merit to having two sections (though not with the existing text): one to explain what needs to be done, and another explaining how to use the automation to do that. If the tool doesn't work (or you want to improve the tool, or you just “desire a different approach” to quote the bootcamp page's intro), it's good to have a description of the lower-level process.

[StanFromIreland]

If anyone's interested, I've written a patch to add the link to Miss Islington's comments: python/miss-islington#738

[StanFromIreland]

I think there's some merit to having two sections (though not with the existing text): one to explain what needs to be done, and another explaining how to use the automation to do that. If the tool doesn't work (or you want to improve the tool, or you just “desire a different approach” to quote the bootcamp page's intro), it's good to have a description of the lower-level process.

I do agree, but currently neither of the sections provide that. I would prefer to do this first (tidy up the existing content), as it will helpful to the contributors who do use the tool. We can add another section in a follow up (I would suggest you open an issue)?

[encukou]

OK, let's do that! This PR is an improvement :)