On 13 March 2015 at 22:08, Brett Cannon <[email protected]> wrote: > Another idea would be dropping Rietveld for some other code review tool. > Guido has mentioned we should probably switch off since our copy of Rietveld > no longer tracks upstream.
That's probably not a good idea, given that both PEP 474 and PEP 481 suggest introducing new code review capable services as forge.python.org (Kallithea and Phabricator respectively) so regardless of how that competition turns out, there'll be a potential replacement for Rietveld incoming. Since both those PEPs suggest leaving the main CPython workflow alone for the time being, and there's nothing actually *broken* with the Rietveld integration, it could be worth pursuing some of the simpler changers Ezio suggested, like pinging the tracker when a review is filed, trying harder to find a base branch, or (one we discussed on IRC) better defining a workflow for generating patches directly from a BitBucket Mercurial clone could still be worthwhile. Sure, we're likely to stop using Rietveld in favour of the winner of the forge.python.org analysis at some point in the future, but that point is likely to be quite some time away where CPython is concerned. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
