On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 23:46 Ezio Melotti <ezio.melo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 10:48 R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:50:53 +0000, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> > wrote: > >> > If people are that worried, we could do a daily dump of the data. 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. > >> > >> We can fairly easily have all github-originated comments not trigger an > >> email to the nosy list. We'd just need to add a check for the > >> originating email address to the nosy reaction detector. Even nicer > >> would be to make it a per-user setting (I'd rather get the emails from > >> b.p.o. and disable them on github, myself), but that would be a bit more > >> work. > >> > >> It would be nice to have *all* of the discussion in one place. > > > > > > If someone wants to put the work in to make that happen then that's fine > by > > me, but I do consider this a nicety and not a blocker. We haven't had > code > > review comments go into b.p.o on Rietveld either so this isn't that far > off > > from what we have now, especially if we block the transition on adding a > > link back to the GitHub PR through a web hook. > > I agree it's not a blocker, but a better integration between Rietveld > and b.p.o was often requested (I tried -- and failed -- to tackle the > issue a couple of times). > What I want to avoid is having people on github missing b.p.o > messages, and people on b.p.o missing PRs/reviews on github. (This > was already happening when people were discussing the patch on > Rietveld, and others were only looking at b.p.o and/or missing the > reviews, both because the email from rietveld ended up in the spam > folder, and because there was no way to know from b.p.o if someone > posted a review.) > > I think it's ok to have discussions on b.p.o and reviews on github > (similarly to what we currently do with Rietveld), as long as the > everyone gets notified. Discussions that are not strictly related to > the code/review shouldn't happen on github. > > As for the notifications, I think the best option is: > * when a PR is posted, it's also automatically added to the issue (to > the list of PRs, similar to the list of patches; generates an email > too); > * when a review is posted, a new message with a link is added to the > issue (this is like a regular message, and generates an email too); > * when someone posts a PR/review on github, they will also be added > automatically on the nosy list of the issue on b.p.o (so they will > receive b.p.o messages); > * when a PR/review is posted, people in the issue nosy on b.p.o are > NOT added to the PR nosy list (they already get new PRs/reviews > notifications from b.p.o). > > This means that: > * when a PR is posted: > * the PR author will get a mail from b.p.o confirming that the PR > has been added to the issue if they have a linked account (possibly on > top of any email github might send for creating a PR); > * people in the issue nosy on b.p.o will get an email that lets them > know a PR has been added; > * when a review is posted: > * the PR author and the reviewers will get two emails (one from > github and one from b.p.o if they have a linked account) or one (from > github, if they don't); > * people in the issue nosy will only get one email (from b.p.o, with > a link to the review); > * when a message is posted: > * the PR author and reviewers will get one email (from b.p.o if they > have a linked account) or zero (if they don't); > * people in the issue nosy will get one email (from b.p.o); > > The "problematic" cases are: > * the PR author and the reviewers will receive two emails for reviews > if they have a linked account; > * the PR author and the reviewers will receive zero emails for b.p.o > messages if they don't have a linked account; > > The former can be solved if we add a way to disable review emails from > b.p.o or if github provides one already (or using email filters). The > latter can't be solved unless they link accounts (I don't think b.p.o > messages should go to github). > > FWIW I would personally prefer to get all emails from b.p.o, either > ignoring/filtering duplicated review emails from github, or disabling > them from github if possible. > > If you agree, this is what needs to be done: > 1) automatically add PRs to b.p.o issues; > This is a blocker. > 2) automatically add a message on b.p.o when a review is posted on github; > With the way GitHub does reviews, this won't make sense. Each comment on a PR is essentially its own review (as Eric complained about because that means each comment is treated as a separate thing and thus generates its own email). It isn't like with Rietveld where there is a "Review + Email" step to send draft reviews and hence a review is a group of comments. > 3) add a "github username" field to b.p.o users to link accounts; > That's a blocker for CLA enforcement. > 4) automatically add the PR author (during step 1) and reviewers > (during step 2) to the issue nosy list on b.p.o; > I view this as a great nicety but not a blocker. > 5) add an option to disable review emails (optional); > This will have to be discussed in connection with the emails per PR comment in case there is a misunderstanding of what a review on GitHub is. > > I would consider all these points except the 5th as blockers. > Obviously I don't think they all are, but definitely some. -Brett > > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti >
_______________________________________________ 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