See and Ezio's follow-up (and yes, you can help :) .

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 at 04:29 Maciej Szulik <> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Brett Cannon <> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 13:11 Maciej Szulik <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Nick Coghlan <> wrote:
>> > On 7 February 2016 at 20:23, Maciej Szulik <> 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.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Nick.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Nick Coghlan   |   |   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: 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.
> :) Thanks. Once we have migrated the repositories over we can start
> discussing enhancements to the workflow like automatic reviewer assignment
> (and I personally have some ideas about PR assignment as well for when there
> isn't an expert).
> But I don't want to get too distracted by this bonus work when we haven't
> even started most of the work required to simply match our current workflow.
> It's great that people are excited about making things better and I don't
> want to squash people's energy to help, but I also don't want to get too
> distracted by enhancements when we haven't even started a bunch of the
> minimum work to even move to GitHub, let alone take advantage of what bonus
> features it will bring to the table.
> My current worry is that we are going to get blocked on Roundup work because
> right now only Ezio and R. David know how that stuff works. Once the CLA bot
> is finished I'm going to shift to helping with that, but it will obviously
> go faster if others can also help with work because we can't
> switch over until we have a minimum workflow that matches our current one.

What's there to be done and how can I help with that, in that case?