On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Nick Coghlan <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 7 February 2016 at 20:23, Maciej Szulik <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 | email@example.com | 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.
:) 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 bugs.python.org
work because we can't switch over until we have a minimum workflow that matches our current one.