On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:10 +0000, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > Hi Holger, > > > I am not going to be much available during the weekend and would prefer a > > switch date on monday. It's be best to have PRs merged or rejected until > > then. > > I suggested Saturday because usually there's not much commits happening, > but Monday works for me too. > > > As to the migrated issues: i just tried with two random user handles -- > > the bitbucket userids map 1:1 to a github one -- so we could add a link > > to the github user (stating "maybe it's this github user: ..." because > > we can't be 100% sure in all cases where the user id exists). > > I thought about this, but was concerned that while there might be two > identical bitbucket and GitHub user ids, they might not belong to the same > person. > In practice I don't think it will be a problem though, so I will add a > another link to the GitHub user id then.
yes, i agree that we don't have 100% safety -- therefore my "maybe it's this github user" suggestion for a text in the issue. > > Also is there a way to, after migration, post to each bitbucket issue > > the link to the corresponding github issue? > > Yes, good idea, I will implement this as well. i guess that this should be a "closing" post so that people recognize they need to use github. > > thanks again for the work. > > No problem, thanks for the feedback. > > Can we set the official migration date to Monday then? Yes. Can you announce in a top-level post here on the list along with the proposed way of what's going to happen? holger > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:26 AM holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > was on travel, then ill, initial scan of your work looks great! > > > > I am not going to be much available during the weekend and would prefer a > > switch date on monday. It's be best to have PRs merged or rejected until > > then. > > > > As to the migrated issues: i just tried with two random user handles -- > > the bitbucket userids map 1:1 to a github one -- so we could add a link > > to the github user (stating "maybe it's this github user: ..." because > > we can't be 100% sure in all cases where the user id exists). > > > > Also is there a way to, after migration, post to each bitbucket issue > > the link to the corresponding github issue? > > > > thanks again for the work. > > > > holger > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 00:10 +0000, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > > > Hi Floris, > > > > > > > What happens to existing pull requests? If we don't merge them before > > > > Sat we have to convert them to git ourself and re-make the PR? > > > > > > Yes, as there are few PRs and there's no automatic way to do migrate > > them, > > > I think that is a reasonable approach. For PRs that; we should ask > > > submitters to open new PRs in GitHub after the conversion. > > > > > > > But for #296 I'm preparing a PR at > > > > https://bitbucket.org/flub/pytest-py35 (because it needed to be > > > > rebased onto pytest-2.7). I think I'd prefer to merge that before the > > > > conversion even if not all tests are fixed by Sat (but hopefully they > > > > will be!). Does that sound reasonable? > > > > > > IMO yes, unless others disagree. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:47 PM Floris Bruynooghe <f...@devork.be> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 10 June 2015 at 14:07, Bruno Oliveira <nicodde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to know if everyone is OK with migrating pytest to GitHub > > > > this > > > > > Saturday (June 13th). > > > > > If all agree, I will send an email Saturday when I start the > > migration > > > > > process (issues + repository), meanwhile no one should commit to > > > > BitBucket > > > > > until the process is complete. > > > > > > > > What happens to existing pull requests? If we don't merge them before > > > > Sat we have to convert them to git ourself and re-make the PR? > > > > > > > > I think I'm happy to decline #271 and #292. > > > > But for #296 I'm preparing a PR at > > > > https://bitbucket.org/flub/pytest-py35 (because it needed to be > > > > rebased onto pytest-2.7). I think I'd prefer to merge that before the > > > > conversion even if not all tests are fixed by Sat (but hopefully they > > > > will be!). Does that sound reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > Floris > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > pytest-dev mailing list > > > > pytest-dev@python.org > > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pytest-dev mailing list > > > pytest-dev@python.org > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > > > > > -- > > about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ > > contracting: http://merlinux.eu > > -- about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ contracting: http://merlinux.eu _______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list pytest-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
