On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Requiring Travis to pass (I really don't want to turn this off as we already had a broken build when I temporarily turned it off at someone's request when Travis was backed up from the AWS S3 outage; I also don't plan to make AppVeyor required unless there's a way to make it be skipped for doc-only changes)
See GH-611. I hadn't actually thought about that yet, but it turns out to be pretty easy.
Also, I'm for keeping the Travis requirement, and also requiring AppVeyor once we've ironed out some flaky tests.
Cherry-picking working out? (We can go back to forward merging if people really want to, but I think long-term cherry-picking will allow for more automation)
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!
Along with that, are the labels for cherry-picking working out? (Some devs seem to like using title labels like
[3.6]to flag cherry-picks so it's more obvious in emails so I don't know if the labels are really that useful)
I've considered whether I'd prefer having separate 'cherry-pick', 'needs backport', and 'x.y' labels rather than 'cherry-pick for x.y' and 'needs backport to x.y'. The separate 'x.y' labels would be useful for issues that only pertain to a particular branch, but requires selecting two separate labels when marking a PR as a cherry-pick. I'm not sure which I would actually prefer, I'm just throwing the idea out there.
Is the mention bot helpful? (Our config is at https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.mention-bot and the docs are at https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot)
I think so, it has prompted me to give a quick review on a couple of PRs. It is occasionally annoying, but it's not hard to ignore. I can see how it would be *very* annoying for anyone who has touched large swaths of the codebase, though. If there's a way to make it opt-in, perhaps we could give that a spin?
Anything to tweak about the coverage bot and reports? (Our config is at https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/.codecov.yml and docs at https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-yaml)
I haven't been noticing much of anything from the coverage bot since we disallowed its comments.
Overall, I'm positive on the move. Thanks for continuing to shepherd the migration, Brett!