[core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

So consider this the starting discussion of the PEP that will be the hg.python.org -> GitHub transition PEP that I will be in charge of. Once we have general agreement on the steps necessary I will start the actual PEP and check it in, but I figure there's no point in have a skeleton PEP if we

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 9:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > Something else to consider. We've long talked about splitting out the stdlib > to make it easier for the alternative implementations to import. If some or > all of them also switch to git, we could do that pretty easily

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 5 January 2016 at 11:08, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> We should try to get test coverage wired up as well per CI. I don't know

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > So consider this the starting discussion of the PEP that will be the > hg.python.org -> GitHub transition PEP that I will be > in charge of. Once we have general agreement on the steps necessary I

Re: [core-workflow] Standard library separation from core (was Re: My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition)

Thanks for sharing that background, Nick. Instead, the main step which has been taken (driven in no small part by the Python 3 transition) is the creation of PyPI counterparts for modules that see substantial updates that are backwards compatible with earlier versions (importlib2, for example,

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

On 5 January 2016 at 10:42, Brett Cannon wrote: > So consider this the starting discussion of the PEP that will be the > hg.python.org -> GitHub transition PEP that I will be in charge of. Once we > have general agreement on the steps necessary I will start the actual PEP > and

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

On 5 January 2016 at 11:08, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> We should try to get test coverage wired up as well per CI. I don't know if >> coveralls.io or some other provider is best, but we should see what is >>

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

On Jan 05, 2016, at 12:42 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: >The way I see it, we have 4 repos to move: devinabox, benchmarks, peps, >devguide, and cpython. Arthur: Each core dev converts four repos... Knight: Five repos Arthur: He who converts the repos four... Knight: Five repos Arthur: Five repos may

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 5 January 2016 at 10:42, Brett Cannon wrote: >> ... >> >> First, we need to decide how we are going to handle adding all the core devs >> to GitHub. Are we simply going to add all of them to the python

Re: [core-workflow] Standard library separation from core (was Re: My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition)

On 5 January 2016 at 14:14, Nicholas Chammas wrote: > Thanks for sharing that background, Nick. > > Instead, the main step which has been taken (driven in no small part > by the Python 3 transition) is the creation of PyPI counterparts for > modules that see

Re: [core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > So consider this the starting discussion of the PEP that will be the > hg.python.org -> GitHub transition PEP that I will be in charge of. Once we > have general agreement on the steps necessary I will start the actual PEP >