On Feb 17, 2017, at 03:45 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: >On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Barry Warsaw ><barry-+zn9apsxkcednm+yrof...@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> But now I'm stuck and I'm impatient. ;) > >No more. :)
Thanks Senthil! And thanks Berker who also reviewed the branch. >I spent time reading the bug, understanding the comments, reviewing >the code, and then toggled my approval. > >The later action was a helpful thing for "me", in addition to being >helpful to you to commit the code. > >If you had already committed, perhaps I might not have taken those >steps until I had a need to. It's a fair point. Maybe we shouldn't change the setting just yet. (As I said, I was being impatient. :) Brett's argued for leaving the current workflow alone for a month to see how things shake out, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to do that here too. Maybe having things on GH will eventually improve the review bottleneck, but if we're too eager to turn off that requirement, we may not find out. Maybe we should bring back MvL's 5-for-1 offer. :) Cheers, -Barry
pgpZ4eXEi8fpq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
