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

2016-01-07 Thread Brett Cannon
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 at 23:56 Ezio Melotti wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 23:46 Ezio Melotti wrote: > >> ... > >> If you agree, this is what needs to be done: > >> 1)

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

2016-01-07 Thread Zachary Ware
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > We can also try to do something smarter by checking e.g. every 15 > minutes and posting the message only if no new messages have been > added in the last 15 minutes (so the reviewer has likely finished > commenting).

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

2016-01-07 Thread Berker Peksağ
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > The goal is to generate at least 1 message/email if a review (possibly > comprising several comments) is posted. > If there are no new comments, nothing is posted, but if there are new > comments, a new message will be

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

2016-01-07 Thread Brett Cannon
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 at 13:06 francismb wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/05/2016 07:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Day 1 summary > > > > > > Decisions made > > --- > > > > - Seems like our current commit ID -> URL service can be updated to > handle > >

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

2016-01-07 Thread francismb
Hi, On 01/05/2016 07:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Day 1 summary > > > Decisions made > --- > > - Seems like our current commit ID -> URL service can be updated to handle > our transition > > > Open issues > --- > - What tools and commands will