[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 can'

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 will > start the a

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 ha

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 with git > submodule

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

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 with git submodules. Not to derail here, but wasn’t there a discussion (perhaps on

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 check it in, but I

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

On 5 January 2016 at 12:50, Nicholas Chammas 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 with git > submodules. >

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 >> available and find out if we can use the

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, let

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 if >>> coveralls.io or some other provider is best, but we

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 substantial updates that are backwards

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 > and check it in, bu

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 >> organization, or do we want somethi