Re: [core-workflow] Presentation on Rust's GitHub based automation tools
On 7 February 2016 at 20:23, Maciej Szulik wrote: > Talking from the position of owning a similar bot in OpenShift, I quite > certain that it's really hard to have common base. Since these bots > address specific project and there are not two exactly the same projects > with exactly the same workflow. I think what Nick meant to show is, > what we should target, more or less at least. It was a combination of a suggestion and a question. The suggestion was "Rust's automation UX seems nice, I think it would be desirable to target similar capabilities for CPython", the question was "Would it be feasible to collaborate on actual automation development?". It sounds like the pragmatic answer to the latter is "No, the additional coordination overhead isn't worth the potential pay-off", and I think that's fine - our respective communities can still learn from each other when it comes to our definitions of "What does 'good' look like?" in workflow design. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ 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
Re: [core-workflow] Help needed: best way to convert hg repos to git?
Well, hg-git might not work... I cloned the CPython repo. I then ran `hg gexport`, which converts the repository to Git. Took three hours, but it worked! However, actually attempted to push the result to a Git repo failed miserably. After five hours, Mercurial ran out of memory in the "adding objects" stage. And I have 6 GB of RAM! Right now, I'm trying to see if I can work around it. This may not work out, though. On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: > I'll try hg-git! > > On February 5, 2016 7:57:15 PM CST, Brett Cannon wrote: >> >> >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0512/#define-commands-to-move-a-mercurial-repository-to-git >> >> There appear to be multiple ways to convert hg repos to git, but no clear >> winner. It would be great if some one/people took on the task of evaluating >> the tools available out there by converting the cpython repo and seeing >> which one has the best results. >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > -- > Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -- Ryan [ERROR]: Your autotools build scripts are 200 lines longer than your program. Something’s wrong. http://kirbyfan64.github.io/ ___ 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
Re: [core-workflow] Presentation on Rust's GitHub based automation tools
On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 at 02:23 Maciej Szulik wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Berker Peksağ > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> I was at linux.conf.au 2016 last week, and one of the presentations > >> was from Mozilla's Emily Dunham on some of the infrastructure > >> automation they use with Rust and other GitHub based projects: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIageYT0Vgg > > > > I just watched it, great talk. Thanks for sharing! > > > >> In addition to their merge bot project homu (which we've talked about > >> previously), they also have: > >> > >> highfive (a greeter bot): https://github.com/nrc/highfive The greeter bit could be rolled into https://github.com/brettcannon/knights-who-say-ni since it has to watch for newly opened pull requests for the CLA check anyway. > > > > > This is a good idea. > > > >> starters (an issue curator): https://starters.servo.org/ > >> > >> While these wouldn't necessarily be something we wanted to set up > >> immediately, it likely makes a lot of sense to try to share the tool > >> maintenance load with Mozilla rather than going for a completely > >> custom setup. > > > > The biggest problem of these tools is that they don't provide an API > > or a framework to use as a base. They have a lot of project specific > > code and they don't work on Python 3. So you'll need to write your own > > code anyway. We are going to write a lot of bots in the next months so > > I think we will eventually create some sort of framework to share some > > code. > > Talking from the position of owning a similar bot in OpenShift, I quite > certain that it's really hard to have common base. Since these bots > address specific project and there are not two exactly the same projects > with exactly the same workflow. I think what Nick meant to show is, > what we should target, more or less at least. > Having started writing the CLA bot, I can attest that it's tough to abstract it all in a way that's easy to swap out the parts. I am trying to do my best, though, so that when it comes to swap out either the server host, contribution host, or CLA records host it won't be a complete rewrite. -Brett > > > > Coordinating with Mozilla (or any other organization) requires a big > > amount of time, and I simply don't have enough time and motivation > > right now. However, I'm planning to send an email to the > > django-developers list [1] when I finish to document my bot. I have a > > test organization at https://github.com/fayton. See also > > https://github.com/fayton/cpython/pull/1 for an example pull request > > (the name of the bot is just a placeholder, Brett will give it a name > > :)) > > > > --Berker > > > > [1] They might be interested since we (will) have almost identical > > workflow with them (they also have multiple maintenance branches for > > example) > > ___ > > 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 > > Maciej > ___ > 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 ___ 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
Re: [core-workflow] Presentation on Rust's GitHub based automation tools
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Berker Peksağ wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> I was at linux.conf.au 2016 last week, and one of the presentations >> was from Mozilla's Emily Dunham on some of the infrastructure >> automation they use with Rust and other GitHub based projects: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIageYT0Vgg > > I just watched it, great talk. Thanks for sharing! > >> In addition to their merge bot project homu (which we've talked about >> previously), they also have: >> >> highfive (a greeter bot): https://github.com/nrc/highfive > > This is a good idea. > >> starters (an issue curator): https://starters.servo.org/ >> >> While these wouldn't necessarily be something we wanted to set up >> immediately, it likely makes a lot of sense to try to share the tool >> maintenance load with Mozilla rather than going for a completely >> custom setup. > > The biggest problem of these tools is that they don't provide an API > or a framework to use as a base. They have a lot of project specific > code and they don't work on Python 3. So you'll need to write your own > code anyway. We are going to write a lot of bots in the next months so > I think we will eventually create some sort of framework to share some > code. Talking from the position of owning a similar bot in OpenShift, I quite certain that it's really hard to have common base. Since these bots address specific project and there are not two exactly the same projects with exactly the same workflow. I think what Nick meant to show is, what we should target, more or less at least. > Coordinating with Mozilla (or any other organization) requires a big > amount of time, and I simply don't have enough time and motivation > right now. However, I'm planning to send an email to the > django-developers list [1] when I finish to document my bot. I have a > test organization at https://github.com/fayton. See also > https://github.com/fayton/cpython/pull/1 for an example pull request > (the name of the bot is just a placeholder, Brett will give it a name > :)) > > --Berker > > [1] They might be interested since we (will) have almost identical > workflow with them (they also have multiple maintenance branches for > example) > ___ > 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 Maciej ___ 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
Re: [core-workflow] Presentation on Rust's GitHub based automation tools
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I was at linux.conf.au 2016 last week, and one of the presentations > was from Mozilla's Emily Dunham on some of the infrastructure > automation they use with Rust and other GitHub based projects: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIageYT0Vgg I just watched it, great talk. Thanks for sharing! > In addition to their merge bot project homu (which we've talked about > previously), they also have: > > highfive (a greeter bot): https://github.com/nrc/highfive This is a good idea. > starters (an issue curator): https://starters.servo.org/ > > While these wouldn't necessarily be something we wanted to set up > immediately, it likely makes a lot of sense to try to share the tool > maintenance load with Mozilla rather than going for a completely > custom setup. The biggest problem of these tools is that they don't provide an API or a framework to use as a base. They have a lot of project specific code and they don't work on Python 3. So you'll need to write your own code anyway. We are going to write a lot of bots in the next months so I think we will eventually create some sort of framework to share some code. Coordinating with Mozilla (or any other organization) requires a big amount of time, and I simply don't have enough time and motivation right now. However, I'm planning to send an email to the django-developers list [1] when I finish to document my bot. I have a test organization at https://github.com/fayton. See also https://github.com/fayton/cpython/pull/1 for an example pull request (the name of the bot is just a placeholder, Brett will give it a name :)) --Berker [1] They might be interested since we (will) have almost identical workflow with them (they also have multiple maintenance branches for example) ___ 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
