On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:03:57 -0500, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Dec 14, 2015, at 08:48 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >What that comment would do is trigger a bot > > As long as we a clear, responsive owner of the bot, and a plan for when it > inevitably dies or does the wrong thing. If the bot is going to be in the > critical loop, we can't allow its failure to block our work.
Well, the bot being down won't *block* anything, it will just remove the level of added convenience we are looking for (ie: you can always fall back to manual commit/push). Likewise, mistakes will probably have to be cleaned up manually, and we might have to shut it off until the bug gets fixed in that situation. That said, we really don't want the bot to have only a single maintainer, though it may initially have a single author, and ideally operations would be responsible for keeping it running. There are a number of advantages to having a bot be the way this works rather than depending on features of the provider's software, easier integration with other tools (ie: the tracker) being a big one. It would also presumably make switching providers somewhat easier. --David _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
