I have a non-core dev willing to help maintain the cgi/cgitb modules along with myself.
Would this consist of adding the both of us as experts on those modules, and then I would be responsible for the mechanics of approving/merging any PRs? Assuming this individual does well we should make them a core-dev at some point, but presently they have no experience contributing to the Python codebase.
I received a few pleas to create the 3.8 branch on Monday. Weekends are apparently when unpaid contributors can spend some extra time on their labor of love. Given the current flurry of activity, I see no issue allowing for those extra three days.
Happy hacking, please leave the branch squeaky clean by Sunday EOD AoE.
Berker and I have been working on a PEP that suggests we keep using
and improving bugs.python.org and Roundup instead of switching to
GitHub Issues as proposed by PEP 581.
The PEP covers:
* What are the advantages of Roundup over GitHub issues;
* What features are missing in Roundup and how can we add them;
* Issues with PEP 581;
* Issues with the migration plan proposed by PEP 588;
The rendered version of PEP 595 is available at
For reference, you can consult PEP 581 and 588 at
The full text of the PEP is include below. We are planning to update
the PEP to include the feedback we receive and to update the status of
features as we implement them (we also have a Google Summer of Code
students working on it).
Title: Improving bugs.python.org
Author: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti(a)gmail.com>, Berker Peksag
This PEP proposes a list of improvements to make bugs.python.org
more usable for contributors and core developers. This PEP also
discusses why remaining on Roundup should be preferred over
switching to GitHub Issues, as proposed by :pep:`581`.
On May 14th, 2019 :pep:`581` has been accepted [#]_ without much
public discussion and without a clear consensus [#]_. The PEP
contains factual errors and doesn't address some of the
issues that the migration to GitHub Issues might present.
Given the scope of the migration, the amount of work required,
and how it will negatively affect the workflow during the
transition phase, this decision should be re-evaluated.
Roundup advantages over GitHub Issues
This section discusses reasons why Roundup should be preferred
over GitHub Issues and Roundup features that are not available
on GitHub Issues.
* **Roundup is the status quo.** Roundup has been an integral
part of the CPython workflow for years. It is a stable product
that has been tested and customized to adapt to our needs as the
It is possible to gradually improve it and avoid the disruption
that a switch to a different system would inevitabily bring to
* **Open-source and Python powered.** Roundup is an open-source
project and is written in Python. By using it and supporting
it, we also support the Python ecosystem. Several features
developed for bpo have also been ported to upstream Roundup
over the years.
* **Fully customizable.** Roundup can be (and has been) fully
customized to fit our needs.
* **Finer-grained access control.** Roundup allows the creation
of different roles with different permissions (e.g. create,
view, edit, etc.) for each individual property, and users can
have multiple roles.
* **Flexible UI.** While Roundup UI might look dated, it is
convenient and flexible.
For example, on the issue page, each field (e.g. title, type,
versions, status, linked files and PRs, etc.) have appropriate
UI elements (input boxes, dropdowns, tables, etc.) that are
easy to set and also provide a convenient way to get info about
the issue at a glance. The number of fields, their values, and
the UI element they use is also fully customizable.
GitHub only provides labels.
The issue list page presents the issues in a compact and easy
to read table with separate columns for different fields. For
comparison, Roundup lists 50 issues in a screen, whereas GitHub
takes two screens to shows 25 issues.
* **Advanced search.** Roundup provides an accurate way to search
and filter by using any combination of issue fields.
It is also possible to customize the number of results and the
fields displayed in the table, and the sorting and grouping
(up to two levels).
bpo also provides predefined summaries (e.g. "Created by you",
"Assigned to you", etc.) and allows the creation of custom
search queries that can be conveniently accessed from the sidebar.
* **Nosy list autocomplete.** The nosy list has an autocomplete
feature that suggests maintainers and experts. The suggestions
are automatically updated when the experts index [#]_ changes.
* **Dependencies and Superseders.** Roundup allows to specify
dependencies that must be addressed before the current issues
can be closed and a superseder issue to easily mark duplicates
[#]_. The list of dependencies can also be used to create
meta-issues that references several other sub-issues [#]_.
This section lists some of the issues mentioned by :pep:`581`
and other desired features and discusses how they can be implemented
by improving Roundup and/or our instance.
* **REST API support.** A REST API will make integration with other
services and the development of new tools and applications easiers.
Upstream Roundup now supports a REST API. Updating the tracker will
make the REST API available.
* **GitHub login support.** This will allow users to login
to bugs.python.org (bpo) without having to create a new account.
It will also solve issues with confirmation emails being marked
as spam, and provide two-factor authentication.
A patch to add this functionality is already available and is
being integrated at the time of writing [#]_.
* **Markdown support and message preview and editing.** This feature
will allow the use of Markdown in messages and the ability to
preview the message before the submission and edit it afterward.
This can be done, but it will take some work. Possible solutions
have been proposed on the roundup-devel mailing list [#]_.
* **"Remove me from nosy list" button.** Add a button on issue pages
to remove self from the nosy list.
This feature will be added during GSoC 2019.
* **Mobile friendly theme.** Current theme of bugs.python.org looks
dated and it doesn't work well with mobile browsers.
A mobile-friendly theme that is more modern but still familiar
will be added.
* **Add PR link to BPO emails.** Currently bpo emails don't include
links to the corresponding PRs.
A patch [#]_ is available to change the content of the bpo emails
versions: +Python 3.4
versions: +Python 3.4
* **Python 3 support.** Using Python 3 will make maintenance easier.
Upstream Roundup now supports Python 3. Updating the tracker will
allow us to switch to Python 3. The instances will need to be
updated as well.
* **Use upstream Roundup.** We currently use a fork of Roundup with
a few modifications, most notably the GitHub integration. If this
is ported upstream, we can start using upstream Roundup without
having to maintain our fork.
PEP 581 issues
This section addresses some errors and inaccuracies found in :pep:`581`.
The "Why GitHub?" section of PEP 581 lists features currently
available on GitHub Issues but not on Roundup. Some of this features
are currently supported:
* "Ability to reply to issue and pull request conversations via email."
* Being able to reply by email has been one of the core features of
Roundup since the beginning. It is also possible to create new
issues or close existing ones, set or modify fields, and add
* "Email notifications containing metadata, integrated with Gmail,
allowing systematic filtering of emails."
* Emails sent by Roundup contains metadata that can be used for
* "Additional privacy, such as offering the user a choice to hide an
email address, while still allowing communication with the user
* Email addresses are hidden by default to users that are not
registered. Registered users can see other users' addresses
because we configured the tracker to show them. It can easily
be changed if desired. Users can still be added to the nosy
list by using their username even if their address is hidden.
* "Ability to automatically close issues when a PR has been merged."
* The GitHub integration of Roundup automatically closes issues
when a commit that contains "fixes issue <id>" is merged.
(Alternative spellings such as "closes" or "bug" are also supported.)
See [#]_ for a recent example of this feature.
* "Support for permalinks, allowing easy quoting and copying &
pasting of source code."
* Roundup has permalinks for issues, messages, attachments, etc.
In addition, Roundup allows to easily rewrite broken URLs in
messages (e.g. if the code hosting changes).
* "Core developers, volunteers, and the PSF don't have to maintain the
issue infrastructure/site, giving us more time and resources to focus
on the development of Python."
* While this is partially true, additional resources are required to
write and maintain bots.
In some cases, bots are required to workaround GitHub's lack of
features rather than expanding. [#]_ was written
specifically to workaround GitHub's email integration.
Updating our bots to stay up-to-date with changes in the GitHub API
has also maintenance cost. [#]_ took two days to be fixed.
In addition, we will still need to maintain Roundup for bpo (even
if it becomes read-only) and for the other trackers
we currently host/maintain (Jython [#]_ and Roundup [#]_).
The "Issues with Roundup / bpo" section of :pep:`581` lists some issues
that have already been fixed:
* "The upstream Roundup code is in Mercurial. Without any CI available,
it puts heavy burden on the few existing maintainers in terms of
reviewing, testing, and applying patches."
* While Roundup uses Mercurial by default, there is a git clone
available on GitHub [#]_. Roundup also has CI available [#]_ [#]_.
* "There is no REST API available. There is an open issue in Roundup for
adding REST API. Last activity was in 2016."
* The REST API has been integrated and it's now available in Roundup.
* "Users email addresses are exposed. There is no option to mask it."
* Exposing addresses to registered and logged in users was a decision
taken when our instance was set up.
This has now been changed to make the email addresses hidden for
regular users too (Developers and Coordinators can still see them).
The "Email address"" column from the user listing page [#]_ has been
* "It sends a number of unnecessary emails and notifications, and it is
difficult, if not impossible, to configure."
* This can be configured.
* "Creating an account has been a hassle. There have been reports of people
having trouble creating accounts or logging in."
* The main issue is confirmation emails being marked as spam. Work has
been done to resolve the issue.
This section describes issues with the migrations that might not
have been addressed by :pep:`581` and :pep:`588`.
:pep:`588` suggests to add a button to migrate issues to GitHub
only when someone wants to keep working on them. This approach
has several issues:
* bpo will need to be updated in order to add a button that,
once pressed, creates a new issue on GitHub, copies over all
the messages, attachments, and creates/adds label for the
existing fields. Permissions will also need to be tweaked
to make individual issues read-only once they are migrated,
and to prevent users to create new accounts.
* The issues will be split between two trackers; searching issues
will take significant more effort.
* The conversion from Roundup to GitHub is lossy, unless all
the bpo fields are converted into labels or preserved somewhere
* bpo converts a number of references into links, including
issue, message, and PR IDs, changeset numbers, legacy SVN
revision numbers, paths to files in the repo, files in
tracebacks (detecting the correct branch), links to devguide
pages and sections [#]_. This happens when messages are
requested so it is possible to create the correct link (e.g.
all the file links used to point to hg.python.org and now
point to GitHub).
If the links are hardcoded during the migration, it will be
difficult (if not impossible) to change them later. If they
aren't, they will either be lost, or a tool to generate the
links and updating them will need to be written.
* GitHub doesn't provide a way to set and preserve issue IDs
if they are migrated automatically with the use of a button.
(Some projects managed to preserve the IDs by contaacting
the GitHub staff and migrating the issues *en masse*.)
* On top of the work and changes required to migrate to GitHub
issues, we will still need to keep running and maintaining
Roundup, for both our instance (read-only) and for the Jython
and Roundup trackers (read-write).
In addition to the issues listed in the "Open issues" section of
:pep:`588`, this issues will need to be addressed:
* GitHub is properietary and there is risk of vendor lock-in.
Their business model might change and they could shut down
* Switching to GitHub Issues will likely increase the number of
invalid reports and increase the triaging effort. This concern
has been raised in the past in a Zulip topic [#]_.
There have been already cases where people posted comments on
PRs that required moderators to mark them as off-topic or
disruptive, delete them altogether, and even lock the
* Roundup sends weekly reports to python-dev with a summary that
includes new issues, recent issues with no replies, recent
issues waiting for review, most discussed issues, closed issues,
and deltas for open/closed/total issue counts [#]_. The report
provides an easy way to keep track of the tracker activity and
to make sure that issues that require attention are noticed.
The data collect by the weekly report is also use to generate
statistics and graphs that can be used to gain new insights [#]_.
* There are currently two mailing lists where Roundup posts new
tracker issues and all messages respectively: new-bugs-announce
[#]_ and python-bugs-list [#]_. A new system will need to be
developed to preserve this functionality. These MLs offer
additional ways to keep track of the tracker activity.
.. [#] [Python-Dev] PEP 581 (Using GitHub issues for CPython) is accepted
.. [#] [python-committers] [Python-Dev] PEP 581 (Using GitHub issues
for CPython) is accepted
.. [#] Experts Index -- Python Devguide
.. [#] An example of superseded issues:
"re.sub() replaces only several matches"
.. [#] An example of meta issue using dependencies to track sub-issues:
"Meta-issue: support of the android platform""
.. [#] Support logging in with GitHub
.. [#] Re: [Roundup-devel] PEP 581 and Google Summer of Code
.. [#] [Tracker-discuss] [issue624] bpo emails contain useless non-github
pull_request number - users want a link to actual github PR
.. [#] The commit reported in msg342882 closes the issue (see the history below)
.. [#] The cpython-emailer-webhook project
.. [#] A recent incident caused by GitHub
.. [#] Jython issue tracker
.. [#] Roundup issue tracker
.. [#] GitHub clone of Roundup
.. [#] Travis-CI for Roundup
https://travis-ci.org/roundup-tracker/roundup) and codecov
.. [#] Codecov for Roundup
.. [#] User listing -- Python tracker
.. [#] Generating Special Links in a Comment -- Python Devguide
.. [#] The New-bugs-announce mailing list
.. [#] The Python-bugs-list mailing list
.. [#] An example of [Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues
.. [#] Issues stats -- Python tracker
.. [#] s/n ratio -- Python -- Zulip
.. [#] For example this and other related PRs:
This document has been placed in the public domain.
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 09:51, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:11:14 -0700
> Barry Warsaw <barry(a)python.org> wrote:
> > As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
> For future reference, is it possible to post the Steering Council's
> reflection and rationale on the PEP?
Also, is there an archive of the discussions anywhere? The PEP says
discussions happened on Zulip, but I don't follow that and I don't
know where I can find an archived copy of the discussions.
It's not as if I'm going to object to the PEP (I'd have participated
in the discussions if I had a strong opinion) but I am curious.
As the BDFL-Delegate for PEP 581, and with the unanimous backing of the rest of the Steering Council, I hereby Accept this PEP.
We would like to thank Mariatta for championing PEP 581, and to all the contributors to the discussion, both pro and con. We appreciate your candor and respect for your fellow developers. The SC believes that this migration is in the best interest of the Python community, and we look forward to the elaboration of the detailed migration plan (PEP 588).
We also extend our heartfelt thanks Berker, Ezio, and everyone who has helped develop and maintain Roundup and bugs.python.org over the years. bpo has been a critical component for Python development for a very long time, and we all greatly appreciate the time, effort, and devotion you have put into this resource.
Onward we go! The migration will be a large effort, with much planning, development, and testing, and we welcome volunteers who wish to help make it a reality. I look forward to your contributions on PEP 588 and the actual work of migrating issues to GitHub.
-Barry (BDFL-Delegate, and on behalf of the Python Steering Council)
If you like the way mail.python.org and Mailman (both 2 and 3) Just Work, and are about as reliable as any service can be, we have our wonderful postmasters to thank. Mark has been a postmaster for years and is currently maintaining GNU Mailman, both as a project and as a service on mpo. Abhilash maintains the GNU Mailman 3 branch, has been project leader since I retired in that role back in 2017, and also maintains the Mailman 3 instance on mail.python.org.
More than that, because of their roles as Mailman developers, they have a deep knowledge of email in general, and in the email package in particular. As I rarely dabble in the email package these days, and RDM --who did a fantastic job of implementing the new APIs and features in email for Python 3— has also scaled back his involvement, it means that the email package doesn’t get much attention these days. Both Mark and Abhilash have an interest in helping to maintain the email package moving forward, and both are eminently qualified to do so.
I have worked with both of them for many many years, and I have the utmost respect for their technical and social skills, their understanding of Python processes, and their love of the Python language and community. I've sprinted with them at many Pycons, until I scaled back my involvement with Mailman. Both are here sprinting at Pycon 2019.
Therefore, with their permission, I propose extending core developer rights to both Mark and Abhilash.
As per PEP 13, I plan on opening a vote on Discourse next week (once I kind of recover from Pycon) for each developer.
Yesterday it failed to produce a backport or tell me that it couldn't
(after the "i'm now working on ..." message was left on the master PR). I
waited a couple hours just in case and ran cherry_picker myself instead.
Same thing today apparently on
the usual backport latency is no more than a minute or two.
It's with a note of sadness that I announce the final retirement of
Python 3.4. The final release was back in March, but I didn't get
around to actually closing and deleting the 3.4 branch until this morning.
Python 3.4 introduced many features we all enjoy in modern Python--the
asyncio, ensurepip, and enum packages, just to name three. It's a
release I hope we all remember fondly.
My eternal thanks to all the members of the release team that worked on
Martin von Löwis
and all the engineers of the Python infrastructure team.
Special thanks to Benjamin Peterson and Ned Deily, who frequently
scurried around behind the scenes cleaning up the messes I cluelessly
left in my wake.
Having closed 3.4, I am now retired as Python 3.4 Release Manager. I
regret to inform all of you that you're still stuck with me as Python
3.5 Release Manager until sometime next year.
My very best wishes,