OK to back-fill "awaiting" labels on open issues?
I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about "awaiting changes".
Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic inside baseball language?
Alex
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about "awaiting changes".
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire) "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 14:37 Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic inside baseball language?
+1
I just added support for the trigger phrase of "I have made the requested changes; please review again" (which is now what people are asked to say). The "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" trigger has stayed as an easter egg (whose response is also part of the easter egg). I also left the random easter egg on the comment about the required comment.
This off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss adding support for another trigger phrase you can bring it up on core-workflow.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 14:36 Alex Gaynor, <alex.gaynor@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic inside baseball language?
Alex
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about "awaiting changes".
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire) "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
And this email was written when heading out the door, so sorry if came off as me being short.
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017, 14:32 Brett Cannon, <brett@python.org> wrote:
This off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss adding support for another trigger phrase you can bring it up on core-workflow.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 14:36 Alex Gaynor, <alex.gaynor@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we please use a phrase for re-triggering a review that makes more sense like "I've updated the patch, please re-review", rather than magic inside baseball language?
Alex
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about "awaiting changes".
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire) "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero GPG Key fingerprint: D1B3 ADC0 E023 8CA6
On 10/6/2017 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about "awaiting changes".
Could you do, for instance, a page a day, so people are less likely to be overwhelmed by (and ignore) a big batch?
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 15:50 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 10/6/2017 5:29 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I noticed today that out of about 19 pages of issues, only the first 5 have "awaiting" labels. Would people object if I back-filled those open issues lacking an "awaiting" label? For those that have a "changes requested" review a comment that said roughly "we noticed there's a review asking for changes; if you already did that then let us know by saying 'I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition' and we will update this pull request accordingly" (the other stages don't have potential false-positives).
The reason I'm asking before coding this up and running it is there will be some churn in notifications for those issues that get a comment about "awaiting changes".
Could you do, for instance, a page a day, so people are less likely to be overwhelmed by (and ignore) a big batch?
Yes, the work could be smeared across multiple days.
participants (4)
-
Alex Gaynor -
Brett Cannon -
Donald Stufft -
Terry Reedy