On 05.01.2016 18:50, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 03:22 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > >> On 05.01.2016 06:53, Ezio Melotti wrote: >>>> Or is there some prepackaged service that >>>> we can use that will keep track of this which would cause us to not use >>>> Roundup (which might be easier, but depending on the service require >>>> everyone to re-sign)? There's also the issue of supporting people who >> want >>>> to submit code by uploading a patch to bugs.python.org but not use >> GitHub. >>>> Either way I don't want to have to ask everyone who submits a PR what >> their >>>> bugs.python.org username is and then go check that manually. >>>> >>> >>> This also brings up another problem. >>> Since the discussion about an issue happens on b.p.o and the PRs are >>> submitted on GitHub, this means that: >>> 1) users with only a GitHub account have to create a b.p.o account if >>> they want to comment on the issue (exclusing review comments); >>> 2) users with only a b.p.o account have to create a GitHub account if >>> they want to review a PR; >>> 3) users with both can comment on b.p.o and review on GitHub, but they >>> might need to login twice. >>> >>> It would be better if users didn't need to create and use two separate >> accounts. >> >> Given that we want to make it possible to move away from Github >> without too much fuzz, wouldn't it be better to have the >> PR discussions on b.p.o and Rietvield ? >> > > One of the motivating factors of this move is to get off of our fork of > Rietveld, so that's not feasible. > > >> >> If we start using Github for this, we'd lose that part of the >> review history when moving away. >> > > GitHub's API allows for exporting all of the data. > > >> >> Moving from the SF issue tracker to b.p.o was a major piece of work >> (mostly done by Martin von Löwis IIRC) and it's not clear how we >> could retrofit those discussions into the b.p.o issue discussions. >> >> Perhaps we could gateway the emails that Github sends for PR >> discussions back into b.p.o in some way (the emails contain the >> PR number, repo name and Github account name of the sender >> in the headers). >> > > I believe GitLab has a GitHub -> GitLab migration tool that keeps PR > history, so this isn't quite the issue that it initially appears to be.
If that's the case, then it's fine. > If people are that worried, we could do a daily dump of the data. This would be a good idea in general. Backups are always good to have :-) > But > unless we can have all GitHub-related comments to an issue not trigger an > email update I don't think that's feasible as it would mean two emails for > every PR comment; one from GitHub and one from b.p.o. True. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Jan 05 2016) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ http://www.malemburg.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
