On Feb 18, 2017, at 01:38 PM, Steve Dower wrote: >Was there any discussion about allowing core developers to bypass any of the >PR checks? Or was there an assumption that we'd just push directly to the >main repo?
I echo Donald's comments. And while this may be something we want to change, it's good to identify it as a workflow pain point, and perhaps relax the constraint as we get more experience with it. Another option is to implement some kind of "rubber stamp" mechanism, either automated or manual. So you would still go through the PR workflow, but if you can't (or don't reasonably expect) to get a review in a timely manner, then we rubber stamp the PR so that it can land. We could add a rubber-stamp-requested tag which could be a good way for PR gardeners to find those kinds of issues. We'd have to be careful not to abuse those, so add a justification to the PR comment and let another core dev at least review the reasons for the rubber stamp request. Then a cursory "this at least doesn't look insane" review and a rubber stamp approval would unstick the process. Cheers, -Barry
pgpEsIbqfs3ff.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
