Requiring Travis to pass
Cherry-picking working out?
Works for me. And I've done a lot of this :)
are the labels for cherry-picking working out?
I like the [3.6] Prefix (Thanks Berker for suggesting it originally)
I think [cherry-pick for 3.6] label is still useful as a visual cue in the GitHub Web UI, but it does create extra work for core devs to apply the labels. Perhaps won't be an issue once the cherry-pick bot is in place?
Anyway, I think we should keep both :)
Is the mention bot helpful?
I think if we can reduce the number of reviewers from 5 to 3 or 2, it might reduce the amount of spam people are getting?
When someone starts blacklisting themselves from the mention-bot, it just means that another person will now get spammed, and then decided to blacklist themselves too.
anything I missed?
I'm wishing for an easy way to differentiate/identify PRs where:
- It's been reviewed, changes were requested, but author has not responded/made updates. --> so don't bother reviewing
- It's been reviewed, changes were requested, and author has updated the PR. --> so it's ready for another look
At the moment, both of these scenarios are shown as "Changes Requested" in GitHub web UI. It's hard to determine whether it's time to re-review the PR or not.
Maybe we can add [wip] in the title after we requested the change. Once PR author made further changes, they can remove the [wip].
Right now, cherry-picking is very annoying but I'm not sure that
merging would be much better with the PR requirement. I'm looking
forward to automation!
Please try it out :) I've cherry-picked quite a number of commits with this.
Works well when you don't anticipate any merge conflicts :)
The command line is something like:
$ python -m cherry_picker some-commit-sha1 3.6 3.5
It will do the cherry-pick and opens up web browser for creating the PR, with head and base branches preselected.
All you need to do is enter [3.5] or [3.6] in the description, and press the shiny green 'Create Pull Request' button.
Related: here's a list of merged PRs that need backporting to 3.6
Overall, I'm positive on the move. Thanks for continuing to shepherd
the migration, Brett!