On Sun, Sep 11, 2016, at 23:13, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote:
> > This way your PRs are always checked against the latest master, not
> > whatever was around when they were first made
>
> I thought Travis did this already?
>
> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests
>
> "Rather than test the
Hi scikit-image folks!
> We've had a couple of community fails on GitHub recently:
> https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/pull/1474#issuecomment-241283056
> https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/issues/2080
> (The last one is missing a presumably-deleted comment where someone
> This way your PRs are always checked against the latest master, not
whatever was around when they were first made
I thought Travis did this already?
https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests
"Rather than test the commits that have been pushed to the branch the pull
request is from, we
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Stefan van der Walt
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 07:22, Egor Panfilov wrote:
>
> Remember me hyping around with the GitHub bot idea?
> Here it is:
> - in the source code: https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot
> - in action:
>
Hi Juan,
thanks for bringing these issues to light. How about we tackle the queue
of open PRs from its two ends? That is, for the new PRs we have this
manager system (we still need to decide how to assign them), and at the
same time we go through old PRs to try to unblock or (worst case) close