> On Nov 29, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Nick Coghlan <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 30 November 2015 at 03:12, Brett Cannon <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. And the "do nothing" option is there, although it's > > so disliked by so many people that the chances of us not changing our > > workflow is pretty slim. > > The interests of folks that prefer the terminal focused > "commit-locally-and-push" workflow can still be taken into account in > the evaluation though - while it appears likely either GitHub or > GitLab will be adopted as the repository management service, whether > or not the maintenance branches and the default branch are marked as > protected so even core developers *have* to go through the web based > merge process is a separate question. > > What?! I've never worked with a GitHub-based project where you *had* to use > the web-based merge process. Hopefully that's not really on the table. In > fact I'm not a big fan of GitHub's web-based merge process at all -- I much > prefer seeing a simple linear history in the master (and I don't like > preserving intermediate commits made during the PR review process).
I don’t believe Github even has an option where you *have* to use the web-based merge process. The closest thing they have is protected branches (disables force pushes, but not regular pushes) and required status checks (PRs have to pass certain pre merge tests before the merge button lights up). Maybe the required status checks disables pushes all together but I don’t think it does and even if it did that feature (as currently implemented anyways) doesn’t make sense for us because it essentially requires all PRs to get rebased or have master merged into them before they can be merged via the merge button which is a massive pain for OSS teams of any size or velocity. > > There are also tools like git-pulls (Ruby: > https://github.com/schacon/git-pulls <https://github.com/schacon/git-pulls>) > and hub (Go: > https://hub.github.com/ <https://hub.github.com/>) that let folks review and > merge GitHub PRs > from the terminal. (I had a quick look through some of the command > line clients listed at https://about.gitlab.com/applications/ > <https://about.gitlab.com/applications/>, but > didn't see anything as workflow focused as git-pulls or hub, so "good > support for terminal based usage" may count as a concrete technical > differentiator here) > > Review and merge process should be separable. After 10+ years of using > web-based review tools I personally wouldn't dream of using a terminal-based > *review* (as opposed to merge) process. Though of course if that's your > preference you should be able to do it. > I don’t know about Gitlab, but GitHub exposes PRs as heads in the remote repository. You have to add a single line to your .git/config in that repository, but once you do they are available to use any regular git command against (check them out, diff them, whatever). Doing that won’t get the comments on the PR and the pre merge test status and such of course, but someone can merge a PR just by doing (if configured): $ git merge upstream/pr/XXXX Here’s my configuration for the pip repository on GitHub that is configured in this way: https://bpaste.net/show/77b17a2571f0 <https://bpaste.net/show/77b17a2571f0> Line #14 is the important part. This also makes my local master and develop branch track the upstream repository, while my own branches get pushed to my fork which is the origin remote. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
