https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/32 might help as well.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> As you say, reviewer bandwidth is a bottleneck (something that I'm personally
> going to try to help with now that we're on GH), so at least for now,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> But now I'm stuck and I'm impatient. ;)
No more. :)
I spent time reading the bug, understanding the comments, reviewing
the code, and then toggled my approval.
The later action was a helpful thing for "me", in addition to being
helpful to
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> But now I'm stuck and I'm impatient. ;)
No more. :)
I spent time reading the bug, understanding the comments, reviewing
the code, and then toggled my approval.
The later action was a helpful thing for "me", in addition to being
helpful to
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> As you say, reviewer bandwidth is a bottleneck
Would anyone consider "Requiring a review from another
core-developer" is actually a helpful thing?
The positives I see are:
1) Forcing other developers with commit rights to act soon and revi
On Feb 17, 2017, at 06:24 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>2) Turn it off, but turn on requiring status checks which will still
>effectively require a PR (there is one way around this, but it is so
>convoluted nobody would be able to do it by accident, and things still get
>tested anyways).
I do like re
We turned on require code review for the PR, though at the time I *thought* it
still allowed you to approve your own PR. Apparently that was wrong. Brett was
the one to actually make the decision to do it and turned it on, so I don’t
know if he knew that it didn’t allow people to self-approve or
I submitted PR#138 on bpo-22807. I got a nice review from a community member
and made a small change. All checks have passed.
But now I'm stuck and I'm impatient. ;)
The change is small enough and I'm happy with it, and I could patiently wait
for another core dev to approve it, but in the likel
