On Wed, 17 May 2017 at 11:27 Victor Stinner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to wait a little bit before giving back my feedback on the
> new workflow. I just attend Brett Canon's talk at the Language Summit.
> So here are my misc notes on the new workflow.
>
> * Is there anyone already working on the w
2017-05-18 9:01 GMT-07:00 Mariatta Wijaya :
> The question is: since backport branch is temporary and gets deleted once PR
> is created, is this even important?
I stopped using cherry-picker.py to use a simple shell script for the
last step, create a PR from a local branch, because I had too many
>
> I don't think it is a problem for the bpo issue number to be missing if
>
there isn't one. (I presume you meant 'backport-bpo--sha1` for the
> BPO alternative.) But how abut using the github PR number in that case?
Sure, provided the commit hash, we can get the bpo number and GH pr numb
On Wed, 17 May 2017 11:35:29 -0700, Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> It's possible, but remember not all PRs have bpo-issue, eg those with
> trivial label.
> In that case, what should the backport branch be?
> So we might end up with two backport branch name patterns, eg
> `backport-bpo--` and `backp
>
> * Currently, cherry-picker works a single step. It would be nice to
> have at least 2 steps: first cherry-pick locally, then allow to review
> the patch locally and run some specific tests, and then send the PR.
The --no-push parameter allows you to test changes locally first. Then you
can us
Hi,
I wanted to wait a little bit before giving back my feedback on the
new workflow. I just attend Brett Canon's talk at the Language Summit.
So here are my misc notes on the new workflow.
* Is there anyone already working on the workflow who would like to
get a grant (money!) from the PSF?
* I
