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

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 at 06:26 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 10/03/2017 à 23:13, Brett Cannon a écrit : > > I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday > > when we moved. :) > > > > First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this >

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

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:29:13 +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > By the way, how do I fetch remote changes for a branch without pulling > it into the working copy? e.g. I'd like to do "git fetch origin 3.5" or > "git fetch origin/3.5", but that doesn't seem to work... "git

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

Le 10/03/2017 à 23:13, Brett Cannon a écrit : > I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday > when we moved. :) > > First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this > migration. I know there have been some things to work through (and > others still

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

By the way, how do I fetch remote changes for a branch without pulling it into the working copy? e.g. I'd like to do "git fetch origin 3.5" or "git fetch origin/3.5", but that doesn't seem to work... Regards Antoine. Le 24/03/2017 à 14:25, Antoine Pitrou a écrit : > > Le 10/03/2017 à

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

Le 10/03/2017 à 23:13, Brett Cannon a écrit : > I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday > when we moved. :) > > First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this > migration. I know there have been some things to work through (and > others still

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

https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/13 already exists to track this idea, so it can be discussed more over there. On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 at 10:26 Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 16, 2017, at 04:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >Ah, you didn't say you wanted this to be a

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:56:33 -0400, Yury Selivanov wrote: > It's not just long waiting times (although it's a huge factor), it's > that you have to create temporary branches for cherry-picks. With > scripts or without, it's a lot of bookkeeping. Also, interacting with

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

Hi Brett, On 2017-03-14 6:00 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: [..] Yesterday I was working on a few asyncio PRs and a bug in async/await. All PRs required cherry-picking. Again, I was spending significant amount of time just creating branches/PRs for cherry-picking. Were you creating

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

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 change is trivial but you didn't add the label. The test fails. You add the

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

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 at 16:26 Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 14, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: > > >There is one pattern that is happening fairly often and that I think we > >should do something about. That is, non-committers submitting a PR > without > >first opening an

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

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 10.03.2017 23:13, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> > Fifth,

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

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 10.03.2017 23:13, Brett Cannon wrote: >> > Fifth, anything I missed? :) >> >> My main nit after the move is that messages to the checkin list

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

On Mar 14, 2017, at 19:25, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 14, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >> There is one pattern that is happening fairly often and that I think we >> should do something about. That is, non-committers submitting a PR without >> first opening an issue on

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

On Mar 14, 2017, at 06:16 PM, Ned Deily wrote: >There is one pattern that is happening fairly often and that I think we >should do something about. That is, non-committers submitting a PR without >first opening an issue on BPO. It gets very old fast trying to enforce that. >Perhaps one of the

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

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at > https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot > and the docs are > at

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

On Mar 14, 2017, at 18:05, Brett Cannon wrote: > There has been discussion of about coming up with some bot that would post a > message on service A when there's been comments on service B, although I > don't know how much that would help (nor which way the comments would go,

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

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 at 19:11 Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 2017, at 2:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > I wanted to get initial feedback on things we can easily tweak: > > Overall, the new workflow is mostly positive. The tooling

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 09:48 Yury Selivanov wrote: > Hi, > > First, I'm really happy that we moved to git and GH. The GH review tool > is super convenient and CI integration helps. > > I'm less happy about requiring to make a PR for every commit. It's a no > problem for

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 12:36 R. David Murray wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:48:30 -0400, Yury Selivanov < > yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yesterday I was working on a few asyncio PRs and a bug in async/await. > > All PRs required cherry-picking. Again, I was

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

If most patches (by LOC) don't require domain knowledge to commit, I guess they probably don't need domain knowledge to review. Alex On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 10:04 Donald Stufft wrote: > >> >> On Mar

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 10:04 Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I actually kind of like the idea of a mentionbot, but the current > implementation has some problems. Rather than calculating who should be >

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

> On Mar 12, 2017, at 9:12 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > Already have. We got 25 jobs shared between python, pypa, and pyca thanks to > Donald. At this point the best option we have to speed things up is to > consider dropping tests (e.g. do we want to keep the C++ header

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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:48:30 -0400, Yury Selivanov wrote: > Yesterday I was working on a few asyncio PRs and a bug in async/await. > All PRs required cherry-picking. Again, I was spending significant > amount of time just creating branches/PRs for cherry-picking.

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

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I actually kind of like the idea of a mentionbot, but the current > implementation has some problems. Rather than calculating who should be > mentioned based on TIL (touched it last), it would be nicer if this got closer

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

Hi, First, I'm really happy that we moved to git and GH. The GH review tool is super convenient and CI integration helps. I'm less happy about requiring to make a PR for every commit. It's a no problem for new features development, but it's a huge pain for a bug fixing workflow. Last week

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

Le 13/03/2017 à 16:56, Alex Gaynor a écrit : > That suggests an interesting question: Why is the Touched It Last so > different from the domain expert :-) Because there are many changes which don't necessitate a domain expert's intervention (such as replacing one argument-parsing API with

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

That suggests an interesting question: Why is the Touched It Last so different from the domain expert :-) Alex On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Mar 13, 2017, at 01:12 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > >Since there doesn't seem to be strong support I'm

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

On Mar 13, 2017, at 01:12 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: >Since there doesn't seem to be strong support I'm leaning towards switching >it off as well, but I will wait until there's been at least a weekday >around the globe for people to notice this email thread. I actually kind of like the idea of a

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

I agree that overall the new workflow is great. I haven't done a ton of commits, but the ones I did went very smoothly (modulo the known and hopefully soon to be fixed Misc/News conflicts). I also love being able to do reviews on GH, and I think the more testing automation we can do, the better.

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

On 12 March 2017 at 23:58, R. David Murray wrote: > On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:37:21 -, Paul Moore > wrote: > > I don't have a problem with the new "PRs attached to this issue" field > > - that's of course important to have. But is there any way to

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

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 2:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > I wanted to get initial feedback on things we can easily tweak: Overall, the new workflow is mostly positive. The tooling looks great and it seems to have increased the number of participants. There is a disconnect

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

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:37:21 -, Paul Moore wrote: > I don't have a problem with the new "PRs attached to this issue" field > - that's of course important to have. But is there any way to not have > them generate emails (probably on a per-user basis, as I'm sure > there's

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

On 10.03.2017 23:13, Brett Cannon wrote: > Fifth, anything I missed? :) My main nit after the move is that messages to the checkin list no longer include the full patch. This makes reviews harder than necessary (you always have to go through the browser). Is there some way this could be changed

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

On 10 March 2017 at 22:13, Brett Cannon wrote: > Fifth, anything I missed? :) One thing, somewhat peripheral. Since the move, issues on bpo now get PRs added to them. That's fine, but it further reduces the signal to noise ratio on the emails sent out for an issue (it was

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

On 11 March 2017 at 08:13, Brett Cannon wrote: > I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday > when we moved. :) > > First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this > migration. I know there have been some things to work through

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

> On Mar 11, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Martin Panter wrote: > > I am also aware of > > but > haven’t added myself there yet. Yea this is what I meant,

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

> > Requiring Travis to pass Yes please. Cherry-picking working out? Works for me. And I've done a lot of this :) are the labels for cherry-picking working out? I like the [3.6] Prefix (Thanks Berker for suggesting it originally) I think [cherry-pick for 3.6] label is still useful as a

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

> On Mar 11, 2017, at 3:03 AM, Zachary Ware > wrote: > >> >> Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at >> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot >> and the docs are >> at

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

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Requiring Travis to pass (I really don't want to turn this off as we already > had a broken build when I temporarily turned it off at someone's request > when Travis was backed up from the AWS S3 outage; I also don't plan to

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

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday when > we moved. :) > > First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this > migration. I know there have been some things to work

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

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Martin Panter wrote: > >> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >> Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at >> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot and the docs are >> at

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

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at > https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot and the docs are > at https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot) On 11 March 2017 at 00:32, Donald Stufft

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

I can't believe it's been 4 weeks. It feels like it was ages/yesterday when we moved. :) First, I hope people are not regretting letting/having me make this migration. I know there have been some things to work through (and others still to come), but I hope this is all a net positive (either now