On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 13:11 Maciej Szulik <solt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 7 February 2016 at 20:23, Maciej Szulik <solt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Talking from the position of owning a similar bot in OpenShift, I quite >> >> certain that it's really hard to have common base. Since these bots >> >> address specific project and there are not two exactly the same >> >> projects >> >> with exactly the same workflow. I think what Nick meant to show is, >> >> what we should target, more or less at least. >> > >> > It was a combination of a suggestion and a question. The suggestion >> > was "Rust's automation UX seems nice, I think it would be desirable to >> > target similar capabilities for CPython", the question was "Would it >> > be feasible to collaborate on actual automation development?". >> > >> > It sounds like the pragmatic answer to the latter is "No, the >> > additional coordination overhead isn't worth the potential pay-off", >> > and I think that's fine - our respective communities can still learn >> > from each other when it comes to our definitions of "What does 'good' >> > look like?" in workflow design. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Nick. >> > >> > -- >> > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >> >> I've also reminded one really handy solution described in the >> presentation, >> which is auto-assigning PR to the owner of certain area. With the list we >> keep >> here: https://docs.python.org/devguide/experts.html we could pretty easily >> do such mechanism. This will be handy for the devs because assigning >> a specific issue will trigger an email notification of such, which in turn >> is >> similar to our noisy in bug tracker. Otherwise the PRs might end up >> hanging >> there until somebody will do that manually. >> >> Having said that Brett if you need help with it - I'm here to help you. > > > :) Thanks. Once we have migrated the repositories over we can start > discussing enhancements to the workflow like automatic reviewer assignment > (and I personally have some ideas about PR assignment as well for when there > isn't an expert). > > But I don't want to get too distracted by this bonus work when we haven't > even started most of the work required to simply match our current workflow. > It's great that people are excited about making things better and I don't > want to squash people's energy to help, but I also don't want to get too > distracted by enhancements when we haven't even started a bunch of the > minimum work to even move to GitHub, let alone take advantage of what bonus > features it will bring to the table. > > My current worry is that we are going to get blocked on Roundup work because > right now only Ezio and R. David know how that stuff works. Once the CLA bot > is finished I'm going to shift to helping with that, but it will obviously > go faster if others can also help with bugs.python.org work because we can't > switch over until we have a minimum workflow that matches our current one.
What's there to be done and how can I help with that, in that case? Maciej _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
