On 05.01.2016 06:53, Ezio Melotti wrote:
>> Or is there some prepackaged service that
>> we can use that will keep track of this which would cause us to not use
>> Roundup (which might be easier, but depending on the service require
>> everyone to re-sign)? There's also the issue of supporting people who want
>> to submit code by uploading a patch to bugs.python.org but not use GitHub.
>> Either way I don't want to have to ask everyone who submits a PR what their
>> bugs.python.org username is and then go check that manually.
>>
>
> This also brings up another problem.
> Since the discussion about an issue happens on b.p.o and the PRs are
> submitted on GitHub, this means that:
> 1) users with only a GitHub account have to create a b.p.o account if
> they want to comment on the issue (exclusing review comments);
> 2) users with only a b.p.o account have to create a GitHub account if
> they want to review a PR;
> 3) users with both can comment on b.p.o and review on GitHub, but they
> might need to login twice.
>
> It would be better if users didn't need to create and use two separate accounts.

Given that we want to make it possible to move away from Github
without too much fuzz, wouldn't it be better to have the
PR discussions on b.p.o and Rietvield ?

If we start using Github for this, we'd lose that part of the
review history when moving away.

Moving from the SF issue tracker to b.p.o was a major piece of work
(mostly done by Martin von Löwis IIRC) and it's not clear how we
could retrofit those discussions into the b.p.o issue discussions.

Perhaps we could gateway the emails that Github sends for PR
discussions back into b.p.o in some way (the emails contain the
PR number, repo name and Github account name of the sender
in the headers).