On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 18:15 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 March 2016 at 06:52, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 at 10:58 Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > >>> Anyway, with the migration to Git it becomes much easier to spot and >>> remind us >>> of potential committers, as both author and committer info are retained >>> in >>> commits. This makes a periodic report (by a bot, presumably) possible >>> that >>> lists those authors with the most commits, but without commit bit. >>> >> >> That's a great idea! Recorded in PEP 512: >> https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/fad7b646ab06. >> > > Bonus points if the bot can figure out how many iterations the patch went > through prior to being merged - when I've recommended folks for commit bits > in the past, it's generally been because I've got to a point where I feel > like I'm just rubberstamping their patches (rather than needing to suggest > changes), so I can be confident they've worked out for themselves what > "good" looks like. >
It's called a "synchronize" action for the pull request, so yes, it can be tracked. :) -Brett > > (Such a bot would be useful even without that though, as the folks > actually reviewing and merging the commits would still be the ones to > propose new contributors for merge privileges) > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia >
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
