Hi folks,
I use "make patchcheck" a fair bit as a checklist for whether or not a
change needs any further adjustments before merging, but found it's
patch-based approach less then helpful with the new PR-centric workflow.
Accordingly, I just merged a few key updates to master and the 2.7/3.5/3.6
On 11 March 2017 at 08:13, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday
> when we moved. :)
>
> First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this
> migration. I know there have been some things to work through (and others
> still t
On 10 March 2017 at 22:13, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Fifth, anything I missed? :)
One thing, somewhat peripheral. Since the move, issues on bpo now get
PRs added to them. That's fine, but it further reduces the signal to
noise ratio on the emails sent out for an issue (it was always bad,
with emails
On 10.03.2017 23:13, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Fifth, anything I missed? :)
My main nit after the move is that messages to the checkin list
no longer include the full patch. This makes reviews harder than
necessary (you always have to go through the browser).
Is there some way this could be changed b
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:37:21 -, Paul Moore wrote:
> I don't have a problem with the new "PRs attached to this issue" field
> - that's of course important to have. But is there any way to not have
> them generate emails (probably on a per-user basis, as I'm sure
> there's people who appreciate
On 12 March 2017 at 13:58, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:37:21 -, Paul Moore wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with the new "PRs attached to this issue" field
>> - that's of course important to have. But is there any way to not have
>> them generate emails (probably on a per-
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 06:33 M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 10.03.2017 23:13, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Fifth, anything I missed? :)
>
> My main nit after the move is that messages to the checkin list
> no longer include the full patch. This makes reviews harder than
> necessary (you always have to go t
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 04:10 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 11 March 2017 at 08:13, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday
> when we moved. :)
>
> First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this
> migration. I know there have
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 2:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I wanted to get initial feedback on things we can easily tweak:
Overall, the new workflow is mostly positive. The tooling looks great and it
seems to have increased the number of participants.
There is a disconnect between discussions on
