Use something other than an In-joke for Trigger Phrases
Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition’ in order to request a re-review of their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense rather than, as Alex put it, “magic inside baseball language”. In jokes can be fun when they’re able to essentially be just noise to people who aren’t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is fine) but they’re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
.. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. :-)
On 8 October 2017 at 07:38, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition’ in order to request a re-review of their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense rather than, as Alex put it, “magic inside baseball language”.
In jokes can be fun when they’re able to essentially be just noise to people who aren’t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is fine) but they’re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.
I'd agree with this (especially since references to the Spanish inquisition aren't going to be funny for folks that are still facing religious persecution). Having the bot name in the trigger phrase is a good way to avoid accidental activation, so something like "Bedevere: ready for review" would be good (and, as Donald notes, it's fine to keep the current phrase as a secondary trigger - it just shouldn't be the main documented one). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 00:55 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2017 at 07:38, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition’ in order to request a re-review of their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense rather than, as Alex put it, “magic inside baseball language”.
In jokes can be fun when they’re able to essentially be just noise to people who aren’t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is fine) but they’re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.
I'd agree with this (especially since references to the Spanish inquisition aren't going to be funny for folks that are still facing religious persecution).
Having the bot name in the trigger phrase is a good way to avoid accidental activation, so something like "Bedevere: ready for review" would be good (and, as Donald notes, it's fine to keep the current phrase as a secondary trigger - it just shouldn't be the main documented one).
I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review again" that won't come up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has not seeming quite so forced.
See https://github.com/python/bedevere/pull/66 for a PR to support an additional, more muted trigger phrase (currently "Please review again"). On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 09:44 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 00:55 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2017 at 07:38, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
Currently the workflow for CPython development requires people to say 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition’ in order to request a re-review of their work. Can we please use a phrase for this that makes more sense rather than, as Alex put it, “magic inside baseball language”.
In jokes can be fun when they’re able to essentially be just noise to people who aren’t part of the in crowd (e.g. the bot name being one is fine) but they’re kind of crummy when a core part of the developer experience or API. Leave it in as an Easter egg if you like (and probably should for backwards compatibility anyways), but please make something else be the primary phrase.
I'd agree with this (especially since references to the Spanish inquisition aren't going to be funny for folks that are still facing religious persecution).
Having the bot name in the trigger phrase is a good way to avoid accidental activation, so something like "Bedevere: ready for review" would be good (and, as Donald notes, it's fine to keep the current phrase as a secondary trigger - it just shouldn't be the main documented one).
I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review again" that won't come up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has not seeming quite so forced.
On 10/08/2017 09:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review again" that won't come up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has not seeming quite so forced.
You're addressing the bot to notify the reviewers. It's like asking one's secretary to schedule an appointment with one's peers. -- ~Ethan~
I just merged the PR and went with "I have made the requested changes; please review again". Figured this makes people aware that they are to have addressed the changes before requesting a review and has them saying "please". :) Plus there's no way anyone will accidentally type that in conversation on a pull request. On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I actually wouldn't want the bot name in the trigger phrase since you're not addressing the bot but the reviewer(s). So using something that is unambiguous as a trigger phrase like "please re-review" or "please review again" that won't come up in conversation about what is required should be enough to be unambiguous of the intent of the commenter as well has not seeming quite so forced.
You're addressing the bot to notify the reviewers. It's like asking one's secretary to schedule an appointment with one's peers.
-- ~Ethan~ _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
On 10/10/2017 11:51 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I just merged the PR and went with "I have made the requested changes; please review again". Figured this makes people aware that they are to have addressed the changes before requesting a review and has them saying "please". :) Plus there's no way anyone will accidentally type that in conversation on a pull request.
Unless they have it attached to a macro and accidentally activate it. ;) -- ~Ethan~
participants (5)
-
Alexander Belopolsky -
Brett Cannon -
Donald Stufft -
Ethan Furman -
Nick Coghlan