Guido van Rossum wrote:
[Hey Christian, welcome back! (It seems we hadn't heard much from you for a while...)]
Yeah, I had an acute case of burnout syndrome. I tried to do far too many things in parallel. I prescribed myself to focus on the most important tasks like my new apartment and my job first. Heck, some of my stuff is still in boxes! Relocating is sooo time consuming.
As long as we're touting tools or processes that we have experience with, Google uses a combination of tools. One tool is similar to the buildbots, running tests *after* stuff has been checked in. A feature that buildbot is missing is that it tries to figure which checkin is responsible for a particular failure, and mails both the author of that change and the owner of the code (if different).
Our buildbot system has another issue. It's sending out far too many mails with too many text. The s/n ratio is bad which makes it tedious to study the reports. I'd prefer a summary once a day which lists the failing build bots, platforms and tests. Add some links to extensive test output, revisions and authors and you'd get a short report instead of ten extensive reports.
Anyway, if we're going to change policies around submitting code, I would much rather see peer review become a habit than adopt a tool like PQM.
I agree! Christian _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
