On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 7 February 2016 at 20:23, Maciej Szulik email@example.com wrote:
Talking from the position of owning a similar bot in OpenShift, I quite certain that it's really hard to have common base. Since these bots address specific project and there are not two exactly the same projects with exactly the same workflow. I think what Nick meant to show is, what we should target, more or less at least.
It was a combination of a suggestion and a question. The suggestion was "Rust's automation UX seems nice, I think it would be desirable to target similar capabilities for CPython", the question was "Would it be feasible to collaborate on actual automation development?".
It sounds like the pragmatic answer to the latter is "No, the additional coordination overhead isn't worth the potential pay-off", and I think that's fine - our respective communities can still learn from each other when it comes to our definitions of "What does 'good' look like?" in workflow design.
-- Nick Coghlan | firstname.lastname@example.org | Brisbane, Australia
I've also reminded one really handy solution described in the presentation, which is auto-assigning PR to the owner of certain area. With the list we keep here: https://docs.python.org/devguide/experts.html we could pretty easily do such mechanism. This will be handy for the devs because assigning a specific issue will trigger an email notification of such, which in turn is similar to our noisy in bug tracker. Otherwise the PRs might end up hanging there until somebody will do that manually.
Having said that Brett if you need help with it - I'm here to help you.