What do people want Bedevere to do for issue numbers in PRs?
When I implemented Bedevere's bpo issue number detection it was to do it as a status check as I thought that's what people wanted ( https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/13). But now others are saying they want a comment with a link to the issue number ( https://github.com/python/bedevere/issues/3). So which one(s)? :) The status check has the perk of being very visible so that people know it's missing (arguably if you don't check your PR you won't notice the failure, but if you're not checking the status of the PR then there are other problems to attend to). The drawback is that you have to know that the Details link for a successful check links to bugs.python.org and that once the PR is closed the link is gone. The perk of a comment is it's in your face and easy to find. The drawback of a comment is you always be notified about the comment which might get tiresome. So what I'm asking is what do people want? The status check? A comment? Both? I know people want *something* since dealing with specifying the issue number has been coming up consistently since we started the new workflow, but at this point I want a clear understanding of what people want so this can be settled appropriately.
What about editing the original message to include a link in addition to the status check? Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
When I implemented Bedevere's bpo issue number detection it was to do it as a status check as I thought that's what people wanted (https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/13). But now others are saying they want a comment with a link to the issue number (https://github.com/python/bedevere/issues/3).
So which one(s)? :) The status check has the perk of being very visible so that people know it's missing (arguably if you don't check your PR you won't notice the failure, but if you're not checking the status of the PR then there are other problems to attend to). The drawback is that you have to know that the Details link for a successful check links to bugs.python.org and that once the PR is closed the link is gone. The perk of a comment is it's in your face and easy to find. The drawback of a comment is you always be notified about the comment which might get tiresome.
So what I'm asking is what do people want? The status check? A comment? Both? I know people want *something* since dealing with specifying the issue number has been coming up consistently since we started the new workflow, but at this point I want a clear understanding of what people want so this can be settled appropriately. _______________________________________________ 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
Appending to the body of the pull request is an interesting idea. I'm not sure what permissions the bot would need to have to be able to do that, though (write access with public_repo?). On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 at 18:24 Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
What about editing the original message to include a link in addition to the status check?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
When I implemented Bedevere's bpo issue number detection it was to do it as a status check as I thought that's what people wanted ( https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/13). But now others are saying they want a comment with a link to the issue number ( https://github.com/python/bedevere/issues/3).
So which one(s)? :) The status check has the perk of being very visible so that people know it's missing (arguably if you don't check your PR you won't notice the failure, but if you're not checking the status of the PR then there are other problems to attend to). The drawback is that you have to know that the Details link for a successful check links to bugs.python.org and that once the PR is closed the link is gone. The perk of a comment is it's in your face and easy to find. The drawback of a comment is you always be notified about the comment which might get tiresome.
So what I'm asking is what do people want? The status check? A comment? Both? I know people want *something* since dealing with specifying the issue number has been coming up consistently since we started the new workflow, but at this point I want a clear understanding of what people want so this can be settled appropriately.
_______________________________________________ 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 17 April 2017 at 04:49, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Appending to the body of the pull request is an interesting idea. I'm not sure what permissions the bot would need to have to be able to do that, though (write access with public_repo?).
If you can figure out how to make it work, I think that plus a status check would be the best option. Failing that, I think a comment would be a bit spammy, unless Bedevere was smart enough not to comment on backport PRs. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 at 21:24 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2017 at 04:49, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Appending to the body of the pull request is an interesting idea. I'm not sure what permissions the bot would need to have to be able to do that, though (write access with public_repo?).
If you can figure out how to make it work, I think that plus a status check would be the best option.
I poked around on a repo where I have write access but not admin access and it looks like at least through the web UI I can edit the PR body. So I *think* there's a good chance it's possible to append to the PR body something like: <!-- bedevere/issue-number --> [bpo-NNN](https://bugs.python.org/issueNNNN) is the associated issue with this pull request (and where all non-code discussions should occur, including discussing overall design approaches to solving the issue). <!-- END bedevere/issue-number --> Then the bot can look for the comments in the raw Markdown to know where the link is already present.
Failing that, I think a comment would be a bit spammy, unless Bedevere was smart enough not to comment on backport PRs.
It's possible if people add the appropriate cherry-pick label to the PR.
participants (3)
-
Brett Cannon -
Donald Stufft -
Nick Coghlan