Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

2017-03-16 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 16, 2017, at 04:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >Ah, you didn't say you wanted this to be a status check. :) Do we want to >go so far as that rather than a comment or PR template? I like it for that on my other projects, so I'm pretty sure I'd like that for CPython. I'm a big fan of more

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

2017-03-16 Thread Yury Selivanov
On 2017-03-16 12:16 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 20:24 R. David Murray > wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:56:33 -0400, Yury Selivanov > wrote: > It's not

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

2017-03-16 Thread Brett Cannon
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 20:24 R. David Murray wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:56:33 -0400, Yury Selivanov < > yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's not just long waiting times (although it's a huge factor), it's > > that you have to create temporary branches for

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

2017-03-16 Thread Brett Cannon
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 17:03 Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 16, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >But that would require that external contributors know to set that label > >ahead of time and I'm willing to bet most won't. > > Not if the test has a retry feature. Your

Re: [python-committers] 4 weeks with the new workflow: what needs changing?

2017-03-16 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 16.03.2017 00:49, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 at 08:44 Berker Peksağ wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 06:33 M.-A. Lemburg wrote: On