Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-04 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 5 May 2017 at 10:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:44:46PM +, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> (And just so I can claim I stated this publicly at some point; our Roundup >> installation I think runs on Python 2.6 and Roundup itself has not been >> ported

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-04 Thread Barry Warsaw
On May 05, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >On the other hand... I can imagine some developers thinking "I just >spent all this time porting my library to Python 3 for free, if I had >known I would have waited". Except, think of the costs in mental anguish staying on Python 2. :)

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-04 Thread R. David Murray
On Thu, 04 May 2017 17:44:46 -, Brett Cannon wrote: > (And just so I can claim I stated this publicly at some point; our Roundup > installation I think runs on Python 2.6 and Roundup itself has not been > ported to Python 3, so I don't know what we want to do if Roundup

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-04 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:44:46PM +, Brett Cannon wrote: > (And just so I can claim I stated this publicly at some point; our Roundup > installation I think runs on Python 2.6 and Roundup itself has not been > ported to Python 3, so I don't know what we want to do if Roundup doesn't > make

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread Terry Reedy
On 5/3/2017 1:25 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Tue, 2 May 2017 at 11:29 Terry Reedy > wrote: It would easier to move discussion to bpo if there were a clickable link from PR to bpo, just as there is in the opposite direction. I believe

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 2 May 2017 at 11:29 Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/2/2017 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: > > On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" > wrote: > > >> IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people > >> to BPO for discussions and

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread Christian Heimes
On 2017-05-03 19:54, Brett Cannon wrote: > I just touched > up https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.rst to > explicitly mention that only code review issues should be discussed on > GitHub. Thanks Brett! I followed Donalds' advice and just pushed a modification to

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread Brett Cannon
I just touched up https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.rst to explicitly mention that only code review issues should be discussed on GitHub. On Mon, 1 May 2017 at 15:32 Christian Heimes wrote: > Hi all, > > since our move to Github I noticed a

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
I've had another look at some of the PRs we do have on Github and must say, that it seems we're discussing a problem which doesn't really exist predominantly on our PR tracker: https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?page=2=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen I haven't checked all PRs, but the ones which have a

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Le 03/05/2017 à 10:06, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > On 3 May 2017 at 05:09, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions >> of culture. > > It's about the UI/UX for me, as Roundup is missing a few modern > collaboration features: > > 1.

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-03 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 3 May 2017 at 05:09, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions > of culture. It's about the UI/UX for me, as Roundup is missing a few modern collaboration features: 1. Easy user mentions: I can't just mention someone inline based

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Barry Warsaw
On May 02, 2017, at 03:54 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >To touch on this a bit more, arguably GitHub is *more* suited to long form >discussion, given that it includes the ability to format your text which is >an incredibly important part of producing readable content more then a few >sentences long.

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Paul Moore
On 2 May 2017 at 20:42, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On May 2, 2017, at 3:09 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions >> of culture. Github is more geared up for a culture of quick chat >> style comments,

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Donald Stufft
> On May 2, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > >> On May 2, 2017, at 3:09 PM, M.-A. Lemburg > > wrote: >> >> This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions >> of culture. Github is more geared up for a

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Donald Stufft
> On May 2, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > > On 5/2/17 2:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop >> this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, >> and for them, BPO looks and

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Eric V. Smith
On 5/2/17 2:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, and for them, BPO looks and feels like a legacy system. And honestly, for smaller projects, I've found GitHub a

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Christian Heimes
On 2017-05-02 20:28, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/2/2017 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" >> wrote: > >>> IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people >>> to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Terry Reedy
On 5/2/2017 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code reviews. I agree with Mark-Andre here. It will take

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Guido van Rossum
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, and for them, BPO looks and feels like a legacy system. And honestly, for smaller projects, I've found GitHub a very effective place to have discussions (e.g.

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread Eric V. Smith
On 5/2/17 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: This brings me to my questions 1) Should we try to move

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread R. David Murray
On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: > >> This brings me to my questions > >> > >> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: >> This brings me to my questions >> >> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with >> having major decisions just in Github PRs? >> >> 2) How can we retain

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-02 Thread M.-A. Lemburg
On 02.05.2017 00:32, Christian Heimes wrote: > This brings me to my questions > > 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with > having major decisions just in Github PRs? We've had that discussion before: discussions always should happen on BPO, not Github PRs. PRs are

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-01 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: > This brings me to my questions > > 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with > having major decisions just in Github PRs? > > 2) How can we retain enough information on BPO to keep it useful as >

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-01 Thread Ethan Furman
On 05/01/2017 03:32 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: With Github I'm seeing a major paradigm shift. New contributors tend to use BPO as ticket number dispenser. Actual discussion seems to happen mostly on Github PRs. For me it makes it harder to follow discussion > [...] I don't have any answers,

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-01 Thread Donald Stufft
> On May 1, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: > > 3) How can we keep module maintainers and experts in the loop? For > example I don't have the resources to read all Github PRs, but I still > like to keep an eye on the ssl and hashlib module. > Add yourself to

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-01 Thread Senthil Kumaran
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: > > 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with > having major decisions just in Github PRs? How will you do that? For Github, a PR and issue request ( an equivalent of BPO issue) is same. And

[python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

2017-05-01 Thread Christian Heimes
Hi all, since our move to Github I noticed a major increase in incoming patches. I like it. It clearly shows that it was a good decision. But I don't like the fact that Github reviews are cannibalizing issues on BPO. Before the migration decisions regarding a new feature or bug fix were made on