Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Mar 14, 2017, at 19:25, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 14, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >> There is one pattern that is happening fairly often and that I think we >> should do something about. That is, non-committers submitting a PR without >> first opening an issue on BPO. It gets very

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Mar 14, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >There is one pattern that is happening fairly often and that I think we >should do something about. That is, non-committers submitting a PR without >first opening an issue on BPO. It gets very old fast trying to enforce that. >Perhaps one of the bo

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at > https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot > and the docs are > at https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot >

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Mar 14, 2017, at 18:05, Brett Cannon wrote: > There has been discussion of about coming up with some bot that would post a > message on service A when there's been comments on service B, although I > don't know how much that would help (nor which way the comments would go, > e.g. comment on

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 19:11 Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > > 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 num

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 09:48 Yury Selivanov wrote: > Hi, > > First, I'm really happy that we moved to git and GH. The GH review tool > is super convenient and CI integration helps. > > I'm less happy about requiring to make a PR for every commit. It's a no > problem for new features development,

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 12:36 R. David Murray wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:48:30 -0400, Yury Selivanov < > yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yesterday I was working on a few asyncio PRs and a bug in async/await. > > All PRs required cherry-picking. Again, I was spending significant > > amoun

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

If most patches (by LOC) don't require domain knowledge to commit, I guess they probably don't need domain knowledge to review. Alex On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 10:04 Donald Stufft wrote: > >> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Barry Warsaw

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 10:04 Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I actually kind of like the idea of a mentionbot, but the current > implementation has some problems. Rather than calculating who should be > mentioned based on TIL (touched it last), it

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:12 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Already have. We got 25 jobs shared between python, pypa, and pyca thanks to > Donald. At this point the best option we have to speed things up is to > consider dropping tests (e.g. do we want to keep the C++ header test, or do > we reall