On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:21:07 +0200, Maciej Szulik <solt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm leaning towards just adding an information who left the comment > > and a link to the PR. I agree with Senthil that gh comments, > > especially those coming from reviews have code context, which will get > > lost when copying over. Besides the amount does not matter in that > > case, whoever is interested in looking or answering into the patch > > will have to go to GitHub and see what exactly it's about. I'm aware > > there are cases you just want to read the comment and don't do > > anything yet, but these are rare cases we can initially ignore. Let's > > start simple and we can always get back to this topic. > > If github comment threading were more sensible I think I'd prefer to see > the comments reflected. But since it *isn't* (it is pretty much useless > outside of the web UI, and even in the web UI it is often awkward), > I think linking to the PR is indeed probably better. > > Just to confirm, we are talking about a new link summarizing the comment > activity for the past N minutes, whenever commenting activity happens, > right? It would be nice to link directly to the new comments, but somehow > I doubt that is going to be possible (at least if we batch them), so we'll > probably have to settle for just linking the summary to the PR as a whole. > > Correct. The links to separate comments might be of no use after a rebase to a PR, since they will point to hidden comments, that's why having a single global link is much better, because going to the PR will give you the current state of it. 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
