On 7 February 2016 at 05:42, Brett Cannon <[email protected]> wrote: > FIrst off, thanks to everyone who has stepped out and started running > various approaches to test them out! Any and all help is appreciated since > there are a lot of parts to this transition and I definitely don't want to > do it on my own (especially since Python 2.7 would have its last release by > the time I would finish with all the work). > > Second, does anyone -- or group of people -- want to own this and figure out > what to try out, keep track of what has been tried, come up with some way to > evaluate the results (both for accuracy in the conversion but also if there > is some way to say one is better than another), and come back to the list > with a solution? All I ask is you try to do it in the open (whether it's by > a Google Doc that's open to the public for comment or a GitHub repo, I don't > care) so people who want to help can? It seems there are people definitely > willing to try out the tools and report back, but I'm looking for > someone/people to organize the effort and come back to me with a thought-out > solution so I don't have to. :)
For beaker-project.org, I found it really useful to have an "administrivia" repo in our Gerrit instance for all the random scripts that didn't have a proper home, but we also didn't want the sole copy living on someone's hard drive. Creating a similar repo (e.g. "core-workflow") under https://github.com/python would likely be useful here, since it would not only give people a place to collaborate on utility scripts, but also an ad hoc issue tracker for tasks that don't have a more appropriate home. 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
