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

2016-01-05 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:53 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > >> >> Or is there some prepackaged service that >> we can use that will keep track of this which would cause us to not use >> Roundup (which might be easier, but depending on the service require >> everyone to re-sign)? There's also the issue

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

2016-01-05 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 05.01.2016 06:53, Ezio Melotti wrote: >> Or is there some prepackaged service that >> we can use that will keep track of this which would cause us to not use >> Roundup (which might be easier, but depending on the service require >> everyone to re-sign)? There's also the issue of supporting peop

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 21:22 Nick Coghlan wrote: > 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

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 03:22 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 05.01.2016 06:53, Ezio Melotti wrote: > >> Or is there some prepackaged service that > >> we can use that will keep track of this which would cause us to not use > >> Roundup (which might be easier, but depending on the service require > >> ev

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 21:54 Ezio Melotti wrote: > 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

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

2016-01-05 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 05.01.2016 18:50, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 03:22 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> On 05.01.2016 06:53, Ezio Melotti wrote: Or is there some prepackaged service that we can use that will keep track of this which would cause us to not use Roundup (which might be easier

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
Day 1 summary Decisions made --- - We will create a python-dev team in the python org and add that team to all of the relevant repos that get migrated - We will add a GitHub field to Roundup and then write/get a CLA bot that will query Roundup to check if someone h

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

2016-01-05 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 21:54 Ezio Melotti > wrote: > 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

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 10:11 Donald Stufft wrote: > On Jan 5, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 at 21:54 Ezio Melotti wrote: > >> 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.

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

2016-01-05 Thread R. David Murray
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:50:53 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > If people are that worried, we could do a daily dump of the data. But > unless we can have all GitHub-related comments to an issue not trigger an > email update I don't think that's feasible as it would mean two emails for > every PR commen

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 10:48 R. David Murray wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:50:53 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > > If people are that worried, we could do a daily dump of the data. But > > unless we can have all GitHub-related comments to an issue not trigger an > > email update I don't think that

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

2016-01-05 Thread Senthil Kumaran
Hi Brett, On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > - We are going to keep all of the cpython history in a single repo Are we not going to have 2.7 as a separate repo? I believe, this is possible even if we keep cpython with full history (and branches). Thanks, Senthil __

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

2016-01-05 Thread Guido van Rossum
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote: > Are we not going to have 2.7 as a separate repo? > Why would you want this? > I believe, this is possible even if we keep cpython with full history (and > branches). > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

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

2016-01-05 Thread Senthil Kumaran
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Why would you want this? > In general, our changes to 2.7 are separate from 3.x lines. So the pull requests and reviews could be handled separately. We could encourage feature contributions only to cpython (3.x) repo and any maintain

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 12:35 Senthil Kumaran wrote: > Hi Brett, > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> - We are going to keep all of the cpython history in a single repo > > > Are we not going to have 2.7 as a separate repo? > I believe, this is possible even if we keep cpy

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

2016-01-05 Thread Berker Peksağ
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Day 1 summary > > > Decisions made > --- > - We will create a python-dev team in the python org and add that team to > all of the relevant repos that get migrated > - We will add a GitHub field to Roundup and th

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

2016-01-05 Thread Eric Snow
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Day 1 summary > > > Decisions made > --- > > Open issues > --- And a couple things that we are punting on: * code review tool (if GH proves undesirable) * separate (sub)repos for docs/tutorial

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

2016-01-05 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 14:19 Eric Snow wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Day 1 summary > > > > > > Decisions made > > --- > > > > Open issues > > --- > > And a couple things that we are punting on: > > * code review

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

2016-01-05 Thread Nicholas Chammas
We can set a commit status that will show red if the user hasn’t signed the CLA (just like if Travis tests failed or so). No need to use a banner or anything. This is a great idea. Almost any automated check we want to run against PRs can be captured as a Travis/CI test that shows up on the PR wit

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

2016-01-05 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Jan 05, 2016, at 06:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >If people are that worried about others being so adverse to using GitHub that >they won't even do an anonymous clone from their servers then we can get a >Bitbucket or GitLab clone set up Once the migration settles down, I do plan on hooking up t

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

2016-01-05 Thread Nicolás Alvarez
Donald Stufft writes: > > There is CLAHub (https://www.clahub.com/) but I don’t have any idea how good it is, I just know of it’s existence. CLAHub is apparently dying, see https://github.com/clahub/clahub/issues/111. Another option is https://cla-assistant.io/ which already has features that

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

2016-01-05 Thread Nicolás Alvarez
2016-01-05 15:13 GMT-03:00 Brett Cannon : > Open issues > --- > - What tools and commands will we use to convert the repos? I will investigate this soon. I don't claim ESR-level experience in repository conversion, but I did migrate most of KDE from SVN to Git (which was one hell o

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

2016-01-05 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 10:48 R. David Murray wrote: >> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:50:53 +, Brett Cannon wrote: >> > If people are that worried, we could do a daily dump of the data. But >> > unless we can have all GitHub-related comment