[core-workflow] Re: "Awaiting merge" label for PRs from core devs

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:31 PM Brett Cannon wrote: > > So the reasoning behind setting "awaiting merge" is because the "needs" label > is meant to represent what is holding up the PR from being closed, and so a > PR from a core dev is really just blocked on merging since they don't have to >

Re: [core-workflow] Final chance to express opinion on history rewrite for issue #s

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > OK, executive decision: let's test a rewrite but only for things that match > the regex at the beginning of the commit message (using Senthil's long list > of possible formats so we get "bpo-" and not "Issue bpo-").

Re: [core-workflow] Final chance to express opinion on history rewrite for issue #s

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > +1: Nick, Senthil, Chris > +0: ... > -0: Martin, Brett > -1: Naoki, Berker Since we don't get clickable links any way about it, -1 on rewriting commit messages. Too easy to accidentally mess things up for no real benefit.

[core-workflow] Fwd: Planning the GitHub migration

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Get buildbots to build from GitHub (Zach?) I've made a couple of small steps in this direction. Once we have a clear date set, I'll budget some concentrated time to get it done if free time hasn't gotten me far enough. --

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

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).